He did not agree with the notion that in order for a country to be profitable, it had to be owned. He also thought that etc.hope this is the answer you are looking for dont know if its right but it should this is what i sead on this note.
Chat with our AI personalities
Taking a general view of the Philippines as a commercial market for us, I need not again argue against the barbarous notion that in order to have a profitable trade with a country we must own it. If that were true, we should never have had any foreign commerce at all.
Argue that a new government was necessary to protect the rights of the people.
Anti-imperialists thought: -cheap foreign labor would become a danger to american workers -american rule of places such as the philippines contradicted the principles on which the u.s. was founded -they opposed the large standing army that would be necessary to control the small countries sources-my textbook
False. This was an example of loose construction and one of the first major uses of the "necessary and proper" or "Elastic Clause" of the Constitution.
Macaulay's argument in favor of the Reform Bill of 1832 that were really convincing was his argument in favour of parliamentary reform. Thank you very much, but what exactly is his argument. I'm reading over the Bill and just cannot understand what his argument actually is.
If you are referring to ancient Rome, there was not an anti-imperialist argument.