Did Thomas Jefferson believe that this government would last forever like it is?

Jeffeson wrote extensively about this topic, at least indirectly. Certainly he hoped that a government based on self-rule and essential liberties would be able to persist. But he also believed that changes would occur, even revolutionary changes, and that this might be a good thing. In response to Shays' Rebellion in 1787, for example, he wrote James Madison that "a little revolution...was a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Later that year, with Madison immersed in the debates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Jefferson wrote that "the earth belongs...to the living," suggesting that no generation had the authority under natural law to bind future generations to any legal, political, or fiscal obligation. The revolutionary implications of this statement are fairly obvious. Jefferson was also committed to the territorial expansion of the United States, a process he did much to advance with the Louisiana Purchase, and he was more than aware that westward expansion would alter the political landscape. Late in his life, in fact, he wrote with disillusionment about the possibility that the American government would persist as he and the rest of his generation had established it. Responding to the Missouri crisis and compromise, he claimed that limits placed on the expansion of slavery would eventually lead to the downfall of the nation. So throughout his life, Jefferson thought that change, for better or for worse, would be the lot of the American government. It is perhaps too simple to, as many politicians and pundits are wont to do, ask what Jefferson would make of one political policy or another, but certainly many of his writings demonstrate that he envisioned, and at times embraced, fundamental changes to the United States.

What is the meaning of the word ''sermon''?

The dictionary definition of a sermon is as follows:

1. a religious discourse delivered in public usually by a clergyman as a part of a worship service


2. a speech on conduct or duty

Most people are familiar with sermons in relation to religious life. When someone attends a service at their church, temple, mosque, or other house of worship, their religious leader may speak on a specific subject. Many religious services follow some amount of prescribed order which is repeated at each meeting. However, the religious leader may use their sermon to also address particular issues affecting the congregation at that time. For example, a priest may give a special sermon on grief when a member of the community passes away. They may also give special sermons with regard to holidays or events in religious life.

Sermons typically offer some amount of advice, and for this reason someone might also call a secular lecture on behavior a sermon.

How did the Union and Confederacy compare in terms of leadership?

In terms of civilian leadership, most historians rank Abraham Lincoln among the greatest Presidents who ever lived. They cite his rhetoric, his political savvy, and his flexibility in the face of enormous challenges. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, is often described as aloof, inflexible, and sometimes indecisive. Of course, Davis as a leader was dealing with even more challenges than Lincoln was in trying to hold together a collection of states that had supposedly left the Union in defense of states' rights. But most would probably argue that Lincoln was the superior wartime President. 

As far as military leadership, the conventional wisdom is that the South had better generals, and that the North won the war essentially through weight of numbers. It is true that the South had many generals still admired by students of military tactics. Robert E. Lee and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson in particular are still viewed as daring and innovative tacticians, who repeatedly achieved stunning victories against larger and better-equipped armies. But the North had its share of quality generals as well, and though the quality of officers was definitely an advantage for the South at the outbreak of the war, generals such as William Sherman and Ulysses S. Grant emerged as at least the equals of their Southern counterparts. These men were notable for their grasp of the nature of modern war, and are hailed as tactical and strategic visionaries by many military historians.

In "The Other Two" by Edith Wharton is Mr. Waythorn's behavior out of character or is there something that allows him to overcome his misgivings?

If I understand your question, it refers to the end of the story. Mr. Waythorn has gradually become aware through his encounters with the two ex-husbands of his wife Alice that she is not entirely the idealized angel of the home he has imagined her. He realizes that she has told him self-serving stories about her ex-husbands. For example, he sees that her first husband is a gentle, timid man, not the brutal man Alice had described. 

At the end of the story, Mr. Waythorn has little reason to overcome his misgivings about Alice. However, it seems entirely in character for this man, so wedded to his comforts, to decide that his situation is not so bad after all. As he thinks:

If he paid for each day's comfort with the small change of his illusions, he grew daily to value the comfort more and set less store upon the coin. ... He even began to reckon up the advantages which accrued from it, to ask himself if it were not better to own a third of a wife who knew how to make a man happy than a whole one who had lacked opportunity to acquire the art.

The very last line appears to reaffirm his resignation to a tarnished ideal, as, meeting with the two ex-husbands in his home, he accepts his third place status:

She [Alice] glanced about for Waythorn, and he took the third cup [of tea] with a laugh.

What were three ways in which the King and Queen of Spain thought they could benefit from Christopher Columbus's proposal?

King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain saw many benefits of investing in Christopher Columbus's voyage in 1492. Despite the voyage being now famous for Columbus's discovery of the Americas, the initial voyage was actually an attempt to find a quicker trade route between Europe and Asia. This goal was one benefit that King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella saw when they decided to invest in Columbus's journey. By finding a shorter shipping route, the Spanish empire would gain an advantage when it came to trading with Asia when compared with the rest of Europe. A second benefit of funding Columbus's journey was that they would get to keep 90% of all the wealth found during the journey. This placed any potential riches from newly discovered lands in Spanish hands. This also represented a large incentive for Columbus as well, as he would maintain 10% of the wealth, and become governor of any new lands he found. Finally, a third benefit that helped them to decided to fund the voyage was to help spread Catholicism around the world, with the idea being that a more direct route to Asia would allow them to more easily spread the Catholic faith to that part of the world.

Hope this helps!

Why did Mary kill Patrick in "Lamb to the Slaughter" with a leg of lamb?

"Lamb to the Slaughter" was published in 1953. Those were the days when Americans were buying big freezers in which they stored many different kinds of frozen meats--steaks, chops, roasts, etc. It was believed that they could save money in the long run by purchasing meat wholesale. The freezers were so big that they were usually kept in the garage or down in the basement. They have lost their popularity for several reasons. For one thing, if there was a power outage due to a storm or some malfunctioning in the generators, the meat might spoil and result in a loss rather than a saving. Also, refrigerators came on the market which had big freezer compartments, and these appliances have pretty much replaced the big coffin-like freezers in Americans' homes. Furthermore, the cost of electricity had to be subtracted from the savings on the meat, and many people felt that frozen and thawed meat did not taste as good as fresh meat.

Mary did not intentionally select the leg of lamb as a weapon. She just happened to have it in her hand.

"I'll fix some supper," she whispered. When she walked across the room, she couldn't feel her feet touching the floor. She couldn't feel anything except a slight sickness. She did everything without thinking. She went downstairs to the freezer and took hold of the first object she found. She lifted it out, and looked at it. It was wrapped in paper, so she took off the paper and looked at again --- a leg of lamb.

A frozen leg of lamb would make an excellent blunt instrument for committing a murder. It would weigh perhaps eight pounds and would have a big bone at one end which would serve as a convenient handle. Mary succumbed to a sudden impulse. If she had been holding a steak or a roast instead of that leg of lamb, it probably wouldn't have occurred to her to hit her husband over the head. But the leg of lamb was perfect for the purpose.

If Mary had somehow been accused of the crime and convicted, she would not have been charged with first-degree murder. The crime was not premeditated. It would have been impossible to prove that she even intended to kill Patrick because, in fact, she probably did not even know she was capable of killing him with that leg of lamb. She may have only intended to hit him. She would have been charged with second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Weapons often seem to have lives of their own. Murders are often committed just because the weapon is available. The frozen leg of lamb seems to have the power to produce the crime, just because it is such a convenient weapon and is so easy to dispose of. When Mary puts it in the oven, the enticing smell of a roasting leg of lamb permeates the whole household. The investigating police officers can't resist it. It is the perfect weapon for the perfect crime.

Mary had no intention of killing her husband when she took the leg of lamb out of the freezer. She didn't even know she had selected a leg of lamb until she removed the paper wrapping. What triggered her violent action was her husband's dismissal of what might have been their last meal together.

"I've already told you," he said. "Don't make supper for me. I'm going out."

He has his back turned to her. He is ignoring her. It is as if he has already dismissed her from his life. He might go out and never return. He was not only rejecting her but rejecting the baby she was carrying in her womb.

At that point, Mary Maloney simply walked up behind him and without any pause, she swung the big frozen leg of lamb high in the air and brought it down as hard as she could on the back of his head. She might as well have hit him with a steel bar.

Is it credible that such a meek and loving woman could commit such a violent murder?

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,"  
                                                      - William Congreve

Does percent and percentage different from each other? If yes, WHY? If no, WHY?

Percent and percentage are closely related. The difference is in their use:

Use percent when you know or are looking for or using a specific number. For example the solution is 15% chlorine, the bank charges 15% on signature loans, the population is increasing 2% per year.

Use percentage without a specific number. If percentage is used as a noun, there needs to be an adjective. For example, a large percentage of the population has no land line, the percentage of people who smoke is declining.

You would not ask for the percentage of land devoted to farming; you would ask for the percent. On the other hand, you might speak of a large percentage of land devoted to corn. The difference is solely in the usage.