how could the duel between Hamilton and Burr be seen as not just a fight between two men determined to save their political careers but a fight between two parties--the Federalists and the Republicans? Why did Hamilton feel obligated to accept Burr's challenge? Why did Burr issue the challenge? Do you think the duel could have been avoided and, if so, how do you think American history would have been changed if Hamilton had lived? Lastly, make a connection to today's political climate. How can we change the way we view politics so we begin to work together?

Hamilton was a man who never backed down from a fight. He was arrogant and loud mouthed. Burr and Hamilton were from two separate parties and were very vocal about their ideals (at least Hamilton was). This duel can be seen as a fight between the two parties because of the parties they belonged to and their ideals. Hamilton felt obligated to accept because he was a man who thought very highly of himself and didn't want to look weak from backing down from a fight. Burr issued the challenge because he was fed up with Hamilton being his rival his entire life. Hamilton was his competitor in all aspects. He got to help George Washington when Burr wanted to. Burr and Hamilton were competing lawyers. So, when Hamilton refused to endorse Burr as president, Burr snapped. Yes it could have been avoided if Burr would've sucked it up and if Hamilton wasn't a hot head. Hamilton was a man with a lot of influence and very strong opinions, so we probably would've seen him as president. Today we see the same tensions between parties. And politics should be the parties against the problem, not the problems against each other.

since most of current immigration into the u.s., both legal and illegal, is coming from latin america. it would be very difficult to imagine or rationalize a country my fellow citizens are trying desperately to flee into, would pose a threat to my prosperity or freedom. since the u.s. has a long history of intervention, but no record of permanent occupation, i would not feel oppression is the main objective.  

the largest free trade nation, along with the largest gdp in the world wanting to expand it's economic policy on us, and including us, could only be positive. the u.s. government has no interest in, or way of simply forcing american culture on us. and has no track record of it. other nations that adopted american social culture, or "americanization" did so voluntarily, mainly through the choice of allowing american businesses and u.s. citizens to come into their nations, as free operatives.

the national congress's powers over the states were specific and definite: it had the sole power to negotiate treaties, declare war, and make peace. all powers not granted to congress were reserved for state governments. congress had no power to levy taxes, for example.