To some Japanese, the most important national security objective was the unselfish one – to establish a special relationship with China, strengthening the region to allow it to turn back the tide of western imperialism. To others, the selfish objective had to take priority. No matter the cost, Japan’s own security and economic survival had to be considered ahead of Asian values. Unless Japan became more powerful, there was no way to save East Asia from the west. Japan could only be made powerful through the economic exploitation of its neighbors. Trade was necessary to the functioning of the Japanese economy. When Japan entered the first stage of its modernization in the nineteenth century, it had become dependent on other parts of the world for markets and raw materials. Raw materials for heavy industry were so strategically important they were placed in separate category from the rest of Japan’s imports. As a result, it was essential to ensure the security of the areas that supplied Japan and the trade routes that must be traveled, to ensure a reliable supply. Iron for the steel industry was of particular concern as Japan was almost wholly dependent upon imports. . . . The nearest major sources of iron were in Manchuria and northern China. –William Beasley, Japanese Imperialism, 1987 According to this historian, how did trade help Japan

pacal the great: the throne was passed on to pacal through a female; as a result, he believed that he must legitimize his claim to the throne to add stability to his reign.

as a result, the daughter of ac kan's brother ruled until her son, pacal, reached an age old enough to assume the throne.

pacal the great became the king of the mayan city of palenque in a different way than most mayan kings.

pacal pointed out that ac kan had succeeded his mother as ruler, thereby establishing a precedent for the rule to pass through a female.  

he tried to justify that the way he gained the throne by connecting his mother with the divine mother and the mythological events that happened during the creation of the world.  

typically, the son of a male mayan ruler inherited the throne, but in 612 ce, king ac kan died and did not leave behind a male heir.

montezuma 1: even so, these wars of conquest failed to provide enough human sacrifices and because of this, he formed a triple alliance with cities in the valley of puebla-tlascala.  

in addition, montezuma realized that his government failed to the aztecs during the famine.

in order to appease him, montezuma increased the number of human sacrifices.

the aztec performed human sacrifices to their god huitzilopotchli because they believed he desired human blood.  

around 1440 ce, montezuma i became the fifth emperor of the aztecs and went on to rule for 28 years.  

soon after he assumed the throne, the aztecs were hit with a series of disasters, namely a plague of locusts, a flood, and a harsh frost  

huayna capac: huayna capac also fought to gain territories north of his empire in what is now ecuador.  

huayna capac significantly extended the inca empire to the south, into what is now argentina and chile.  

in 1493 ce, huayna capac became the eleventh ruler of the inca empire.  

huayna, therefore, wanted to gain his own lands and launched campaigns against tribes to the east and north of the empire.  

the inca empire reached its peak under the rule of huayna capac.

during this time the empire covered a vast territory including parts of present day colombia, peru, argentina, chile, bolivia, and ecuador.

during his reign, huayna heard about bearded men with pale skin that resembled the incan1 god viracocha and took this news as a bad omen.

huayna took this as another bad omen that predicted the destruction of the empire.

especially research the treaty of greenville and the treaty of colerain in washington's administration.   also research at least one significant treaty from the administrations of adams, jefferson, and madison. tell the outcome of each treaty and how it did or did not in the further development of the west.

treaty of greenville (1814) the treaty of greenville (1814) was called a treaty of peace and friendship between the united states of america and the tribes of native americans called the wyandots, delawares, shawanoese, senacas and miamies.

the treaty of colerain was signed at st. marys, georgia in camden county, georgia, by benjamin hawkins, george clymer, and andrew pickens for the united states and representatives of the creek nation, for whom indian trader langley bryant served as an interpreter, on june 29, 1796, proclaimed on march 18, 1797, and codified as 7 stat. 56. colerain was a small community and the site of a u.s. indian factory founded by james seagrove.  

this treaty affirmed the binding of the treaty of new york (1790). the treaties of hopewell and the treaty of holston (1791) established boundary lines between the choctaws, chickasaws, cherokee, and the u.s. the treaty of colerain bound the creek nation to acknowledge the boundaries established in those treaties.  

it also established the boundary line between the creek nation and the united states. at the time of this treaty, the boundaries between spanish florida and the u.s. had not yet been established. this treaty formally allowed the creek chiefs to acknowledge the negotiation for delineating the georgia-florida boundary with spain.  

the treaty contained a provision that the president of the u.s. may establish a trading or military outpost.  

the united states demanded that the creeks give up their american prisoners and also return all "citizens, white inhabitants, negroes and property" taken by the creeks.  

the treaty describes when it would take effect. after the treaty had been signed but not yet promulgated, the u.s. senate requested modification of two articles of the treaty. the first modification stipulated that the military or trading posts would be under the control of the united states. the second modification stipulated that if the u.s. no longer required the use of those posts, the locations would revert to the creek people.  

the correct answer is: the fact that the anti-federalist papers were considered poorly written.