What happened as a result of the second great awakening?

The Second Great Awakening was a religious revival of the United States that began at the end of the eighteenth century and lasted until the mid-nineteenth century.

The movement began around 1790, the great impact was achieved by 1800, and after 1820 membership was multiplied among the baptist and methodistic communities whose preachers were the leaders of the movement.

It came about fifty years after the First Great Awakening and consisted of renewed ideas of personal salvation achieved in revitalization meetings. The main leaders were Charles Grandison Finney, Lyman Beecher, Barton Stone, Peter Cartwright and James B. Finley.

The Second Great Awakening was extraordinarily important because it led to the strengthening of reform movements, to deal with injustice and remedy the suffering, such as the Temperance Movement, the Women's Freedom Movement and the Abolitionist Movement in which people fought for emancipation on religious principles. As a result of the decline of religious convictions, many religions sponsored religious revival. These revival had the result of a clear idea of ​​the dependence of human beings on God.

A large-scale religious movement in the United States, which brought about more awareness of topics such as temperance and slavery, was the second great awakening.

Explanation:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

we need the map to answer the question