Which one of the following statements is most accurate regarding the Mayflower Compact?
828894
D. The Mayflower Compact was the first governing document of Plymouth Colony. It was drafted by the Pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic aboard the Mayflower, seeking religious freedom. It was signed on November 21, 1620 (N.S.) in what is now Provincetown Harbor near Cape Cod. \n\nC-Mayflower Compact was passed, based upon a majoritarian model and to proclaim the settlers' allegiance to the king.
188828
i don't remember EXACTLY, but he tells them something about land ownership that proves someone else's innocence...i think something having to do with thomas putnam.  he says that "someone" told him that putnam owned something or did something land related, and was "killing his neighbors for their land" by accusing them of witchcraft, but that he can't tell them who told him.  since the source is quite important, they put him on trial to try and force him to tell them, but he won't, so they stone him in contempt of court.
22980
looks at it.\n\n\nBut I'm finding that there are confilcts over who said it originally.  I have found both Emerson and Thoreau as being quoted.
843260
The most famous literary work from that period is The Pilgrim's Progress.  It is considered a Puritan classic.  Read about it at Wikipedia.  \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pilgrim's_Progress
1070266
What do you wanna know? \n\nwww.rootsweb.com\n\nOld Cemetery= East side of Main St. at the intersection of Palmer Rd.\n\nNorth Cemetery= North side of County Rd. ( Rt. 106 ) just west of the Kingston town line.\n\nAre you looking for Mayflower Descendants?
212450
All these answers are speculation,no one knows for sure.If history tells us anything what we believe to be true today is most likely in error.It will be what you believe it to be!
950268
Benjamin Franklin, and so very,very true.\nhe also said:All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones.
441824
Modus Ponens:\nIf is true P, then Q is true.\nP is true.\nTherefore, Q is true. \nExample:\nIf you buy today, I will give you a 10% discount. You have agreed to buy today, so I will reduce the price by 10%.\n\nModus Tollens:\nIf P, then Q.\nQ is false.\nTherefore, P is false.\nExample:\nIf there is smoke, there is fire. There is not fire, so there is no smoke.
442854
I was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson that he wrote to a group of Baptists that were worried that another church would become the Official Church of the US.\n\nThe statement was used to reassure the Baptists it couldn't happen
205979
Heh, yeah, I heard that one before. Well, it is a statement, so i'm assuming it's true. A statement of THAT nature can't possibly be false, because it holds nothing of substance.
477658
The philosophy was that colonies exist solely for the purpose of creating wealth for the mother country. The colonists felt that at least SOME of the wealth they created should be for their own benefit, not ALL for "the crown", hence the armed conflict known as The American Revolution.
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
191491
BEFOR THE THE MAYFLOWER DROPED ANCER
305915
C.Widely by the English during the 1700s
838231
I don't believe any of the choices are correct, I'd be curious to see your source.\n\nThe Quakers had early settlements in Virginia, nothing really specifically connected witht eh Appalachain Mountains.
1030171
You need to grab a cup of coffee and start reading...\n\nhttp://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct\n\n\nDon't believe the first thing you come across.  There's no way hundreds of millions of Americans have been duped for so long, and you've just stumbled across the answer we've all been waiting to hear.  It's noble, but unfounded.  \n\nThere's a lot to consider.  Chew on this (which is from that link above):\n\n[quote]\nThe question of whether an individual income tax was a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution did not arise until the Union enacted an income tax during the Civil War. The Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an "excise," and not a "direct tax," and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). \n\nHylton and Springer were limited (or "distinguished") in 1894, when the Supreme Court decided to re-examine the question of whether an income tax was a "direct tax." In the first Pollock decision, a narrow majority of the court (5 of the 9 justices) began with the premise that a tax on the income from property is the same as a tax on the value of the property itself, a premise completely inconsistent with every other Supreme Court decision before or since (and was repudiated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937)). The Court then concluded that a tax on rents received from real property was a "direct tax" and unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). On rehearing, the same five justices decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (property other than land) was also a "direct tax" and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) \n\nThe Pollock court was very clear that it was only a tax on the incomes from property that was a "direct tax," and other forms of income could be taxed without apportionment. This was confirmed by the court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). (See below for a more detailed discussion of the taxation of the income from labor.) \n\nAfter the Pollock decisions, and before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court also held that a corporate income tax was constitutional if it was based on the income from the manufacture and sale of goods, even though real and personal property were used to manufacture the goods. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) \n\nBecause of the Pollock decisions, Congress was limited in its ability to impose a tax on incomes, because it was necessary to determine the source of the income. Wages, salaries, and other earned incomes could be taxed, and income from manufacturing and other business activities could be taxed, but rents, interest, dividends, and other incomes from property could not be taxed without apportionment (a very awkward process). The 16th Amendment was therefore proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states, so that Congress could tax incomes "from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." \n[/quote]
776079
The Mayflower\n\nhttp://pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/mayflower.html\n\nMayflower Passenger List\n\nhttp://pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/passengers.htm\n\nThe Pilgrims: Voyage to Freedom\n\nhttp://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/pilgrims1.htm\n\nhttp://www.pilgrimhall.org/voymayfl.htm\n\nhttp://uk.geocities.com/haywardlass/\n\nhttp://edtech.kennesaw.edu/web/coloniz.html\n\nhttp://www.oswego.org/staff/cchamber/resources/colonial.cfm\n\n\nThe Mayflower Compact by William Bradford\nNovember 11, 1620\n\nhttp://www.nationalcenter.org/MayflowerCompact.html\n\nThe Mayflower Compact 1620\n\nAfter many difficulties in boisterous storms, at length by God’s providence...we espied land, which we deemed to be Cape Cod...and upon the 21 of November we came to anchor in the bay [Provincetown Harbor]...\n\nhttp://www.pilgrimhall.org/compcon.htm\n\nThe Names of the Subscribers of the Mayflower Compact\n\nhttp://members.aol.com/calebj/compact.html\n\nAgreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth : 1620\n\nhttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/mayflower.htm\n\nhttp://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/mayflower.htm\n\nPlymouth: Its History and People\n\nhttp://www.plimoth.org/learn/history/colonists/MayflowerCompact.asp\n\nhttp://pilgrims.net/plymouth/history/\n\nGood luck.\n\nKevin, Liverpool, England.