1. What significance does wealth have in American political thought? Draw upon your class notes to make your answer as detailed as possible. In constructing your response, youmustrefer to Benjamin...

Last Name:    1
Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Title: American Political Thought
Contents
Answer 1    3
Answer 2    7
Answer 1
It is vital to realize in the first half of this topic that wealth plays a key role in politics, particularly in the United States, and that it is managed and held by capitalism. Wealth impacts the political wave orientation, as well as how public utilities are distributed to governments and residents. As a result, wealth may be said to produce political structures and leadership, including administration; wealth also chooses or determines who will rule America, as well as the sort of government that will be developed. As a result, the above-mentioned affluent individuals have affected US politics in many ways, and they are thus regarded as crucial in decision-making. To begin with, Benjamin Franklin took part in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and received a lot of support from King Louis XVI of France, and he signed the military alliance in 1778, indicating that his participation was due to his wealth status and political decisions that he could not be left out of. He also had a role in building the American government between 1740 and 1750, leading up to the country's independence in 1776. In another almanac, he advises that if you want to be wealthy, you need to wo
y about saving as well as getting: the Indies have not made Spain wealthy since her outgoings exceed her profits. Get rid of your pricey frills, and you would not have as much reason to whine about hard times, high taxes, and charged families.
Whereas Booker T. Washington was not affluent, and because of this, he was able to battle ceaselessly for black people by persuading white people, and he became a major participant in black politics. This propelled him to the pinnacle of American politics, where he later became a philanthropist and an educationist; however, all of this occu
ed after he amassed some fortune, which he lacked. To begin with, individuals who make such
oad accusations have no idea how many people would be left impoverished and how much pain would ensue if affluent people were to part with a big chunk of their fortune all at once to disorganize and cripple huge economic companies. Then some are unaware of the vast number of applications for assistance that wealthy people are regularly bombarded with.
Helen Hunt Jackson was an ideologue who, despite her low socioeconomic status, recognized that government agencies mistreated native Americans who were also poor, and she took on the role of inspecting and publicizing the government's misconduct, raising funds for such fights, and assisting many native Americans to rise. I had never sought or cared about what the world refers to as a cele
ity. I have always considered cele
ity to be something that can be used for good. I have frequently told my pals that I am satisfied with whatever popularity has come my way as long as I can utilize it to accomplish good. People only wo
y about it as a tool to be utilized for good, same to how riches may be used. Andrew Carnegie, on the other hand, was one of America's richest men, owning the steel kingdom as well as the raw materials for building and construction. As a result, he played a key role in the industrial revolution, controlling and arming the US economy to a degree of supremacy and domination. Bygone times were everything except great. Neither the proprietor nor the laborer was in as great a situation as they are cu
ently.
A re-visitation of pre-war conditions would be annihilating for both, not least for the individuals who serve, and would clear human advancement away with it. Be that as it may, regardless of whether the shift is to improve things or for the more regrettable, it has a
ived, outside our ability to control to change, and consequently should be em
aced and capitalized on. It is inconsequential to denounce the unavoidable. It will be evident that fortunes are being talked about here, not unobtrusive totals procured over numerous long stretches of difficult work, the profits on which are required for the agreeable upkeep and training of families. This isn't cash, but instead ability, which everybody ought to make progress toward. There are just three choices for discarding overabundance wealth. It tends to be passed on to the progenitors' families, given for public purposes, or administered by the owners all through their lifetimes. A large portion of the world's abundance that has a
ived at the couple of has been applied in the first and second structures. Allow us to investigate every one of these modes individually. The first is the most reckless.
In monarchical nations, the te
itories and the majority of the money are bequeathed to the first son so that the parent's pride can be fulfilled by the knowledge that his name and title would be passed down unchanged to subsequent generations. The subsequent way, giving wealth to the public great upon death, might be depicted as a method for discarding riches, if a man is ready to delay until he is dead before it is of much help on the planet. The information on the results of given inheritances isn't probably going to move the most noteworthy yearnings for much post mortem benefit. It isn't extraordinary for the deceased benefactor's actual cravings to be defeated, just as for the departed benefactor's actual intend to be obstructed. All through many cases, the estates are misused that they become minimal more than landmarks to his ineptitude. It is important to remember that using wealth in a way that is truly useful to society necessitates the exercise of not less ability than that with which the riches were gained. Aside from that, it is reasonable to say that no one should be praised for doing what he cannot avoid doing, and no one should be rewarded by the community to which he merely leaves money after he dies. Men who leave large sums in this manner may be considered men who would not have left it at all if they had the option of taking it with them.
Finally, Jacob Riis came from a lower socioeconomic class in the United States, and as a writer and social...