Get help from the best in academic writing.

Iroqouis Confederacy essay help online free Calculus assignment help

Raids of another’s tribe grew more frequent. The violence needed a peaceful conclusion; therefore to control the violence the confederacy was founded. Iroquois oral history refers to the founder of the confederacy, Chief Designated, “blocking out the sun” as a demonstration of his powers. (Farther, Bubble, Coatroom, Remarriage 2007) His great orator, Hiawatha, was the one who persuaded the first five Iroquois nations to join in the confederacy.

As each one of the confederated nations was distributed into several tribes, there were about thirty or so sachems in the confederacy.These had interior officers under them, answering to the town judges. So the civil power of the government was widely circulated. A man could only gain his office by his own merits, and he held it with good behavior. Any unwanted action was dealt with by dismissal from office and the penalty of public scorn. They, as well as the military leaders, accepted no salary, and gave away any privileges of their offices in peace and their share of plunder in time of war. There was no bribery or corruption in office.

These immoralities of civilization were unknown to them.They felt sufficiently rewarded by the confidence and esteem of the people they served and led. The feeling of responsibility which was rusted upon them empowered them to serve and lead with dignity. Each nation was a distinct republic; entirely independent of the others in what may be termed the domestic concerns of the State. However each was bound to others of the league by ties of honor and of general interest. Each had an equal voice in the General Council or Congress of the league, and each possessed a sort of veto or prohibitory power, which was a guaranty against a dictatorship or despotism.The powers and duties of the chief magistrate of he Confederacy were similar to those imposed upon the President of the united States.

He had authority to “light the great Council Fire”-to assemble the General Congress-by sending a messenger to the sachem of each nation, calling him to a meeting. The chief magistrate would personally ignite a fire around which the representatives gathered and each lighted his pipe. He had a cabinet of six councilors of state, whose powers were only advisory. In the Council, he was only the moderator or presiding officer.He had no power to control, directly, military affairs, nor interfere with the internal policy of the overall states of the league. (MM/hat is the Iroquois Confederacy,” 2002) In contrast, the Algonquian of the Great Lakes were diverse from the Iroquois in a few ways. Their blending of Algonquian speaking people was divided among at least fifty distinct cultures all along and within the northern Great sakes and northeastern New England.

A few of the tribe-like groups were the Miasma, the Ceres, the Montages, and the Ojibwa. As opposed to the Iroquois, the Algonquian were mostly hunter-gathers.They organized themselves into groups with loose ethnic associations. As well as being less stable than the Iroquois, most of the Algonquian were patrimonial. They lived in smaller villages that could be easily taken down and moved. Quite often their villages would not have surrounding fortifications. Later the Algonquian founded settlements and became stable around the Great Lakes and the Ohio Valley.

This steered them to beginning to farm and be able to support more densely populated areas like the Iroquois. In addition, even though the Algonquian were mainly independent.

Philosophy Question

Directions: Some people base their moral beliefs on religious tradition or authority. For some religious persons, something is good or bad because God (or a religious text) has said that it is good or bad, and that is enough of a reason for regarding one thing as being good and another thing as being bad (Divine Command Theory).
For others, it might be that nature was created by God with a set or orders, values, and purposes built into it. Anything that follows and fulfills these values/purposes is good, and anything which deviates from them, or does not fulfil these values/purpose is defective/bad (Natural Law Theory). (Note: this does not describe all the possible ways that religion can influence moral thinking!!)
I want you to take the position of a religious person or a non-religious person in your paper.
If you take the position of a religious person, I want you to:
Tell me why you believe certain actions to be good and other actions to be bad. Is it because God says so? Is it because these things are naturally good or naturally bad? Or is it because of another reason?
If it is because God says so, I want you to include a discussion of the Euthyphro Dilemma in your paper: How would you try to resolve what seems to be ethical subjectivism on God’s part if things are good or bad simply because God says so?
If it is because God ordered nature to be a certain way, I want you to consider the Rachel’s objections to Natural Law Theory: How would you answer these objections?
If it is for another reason that isn’t Divine Command Theory or Natural Law Theory, explain to me how you derive all or some of your moral ideas from your religion, and how they can be defended as being truly right.
If you take the position of a non-religious person, I want you to:
Tell me where your moral ideas come from and how they can be defended. Are they based on laws derived from reason? Are they based on your personal preferences? Or do they come from something else? If so, how can they be argumentatively defended as right or wrong (if they can be defended at all)?
Consider a point of morality which you would disagree with a religious person on. It might be where their morals come from, or it could be a particular moral idea (such as whether same-sex relationships should be permissible or not), or a way in which moral practices are defended or criticized as right or wrong.
How would you argue your views against that of the religious person you disagree with? In a friendly and civil way, how would you try to persuade this person that you are likely right in your beliefs and they are likely wrong in theirs (or, if you want to be more forceful in this matter: why you must be right, and why they must be wrong)?
Finally, I want you to consider whether it is possible for your point of view and the religious point of view to exist peacefully and respectfully of each other. If so, why? And if not, why?
In order to get the full amount of points with this assignment, it needs to be completed with:
At least 2 full written pages (“full page” means that the text has to reach all the way to the bottom of the page)
And it needs to be written in 12 point font, and the lines need to be double-spaced. AND THERE CAN’T BE ANY EXTRA SPACES BETWEEN THE PARAGRAPHS! That is, don’t make the paragraphs double-spaced and then quadruple-space the spaces between those paragraphs!
you don’t have to included any external sources. But if you do, then be sure to cite your them. You don’t need to include a works cited page or bibliography page, but be sure to cite your source in a footnote. Give me the author, title, and page number of the source if it’s from a book, magazine, journal article, or newspaper, or give me the author (if you can find it) and the url address if it’s from an online source.