1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
hammer [34]
3 years ago
8

How did southern blacks lose rights in the years after the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments?

History
1 answer:
Arte-miy333 [17]3 years ago
4 0
The main way in which southern blacks lost rights in the years after the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments was that "<span>c. Some white southerners used state legislation, segregation, and violence to limit the freedoms of blacks," in the years after the Civil War. </span>
You might be interested in
Why did more and more workers begin organizing in the late 1800s
blondinia [14]
Since there is no background information, I would assume they could be going on strike.
5 0
3 years ago
Based on the following descriptions, what is the best term that applies? Pride in your country Based on your geographic location
kolezko [41]

Answer:

C.Nationalism

Explanation:

I had the same question on my social studies quiz lol

4 0
3 years ago
PLEASE HELP WILL GIVE BRANLIEST
zaharov [31]

Answer: Indentured servants

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
What are three major monotheistic, Abrahamic religions in the world? Which came first, second, and third in the historical timel
Tamiku [17]

Answer:

Judasim, Islam, then Christianity

Explanation:

hope this helps

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Communism allowance for significantly more individual freedom than its rival economic system capitalism
    8·1 answer
  • How do economists of the past influence us today?
    12·1 answer
  • Who was a first lady who lobbied for educational opportunities for women?
    10·2 answers
  • What two empires was the Hundred Years' War fought between?
    15·1 answer
  • Lenin’s New Economic Policy was designed to a. end all traces of capitalism. b. rebuild the Soviet economy. c. make the Soviet U
    14·1 answer
  • which of the following statements anput the presidents judicial power are true select all that apply
    6·1 answer
  • Economically, how were the Middle Colonies different from New England?
    9·1 answer
  • What is the Senate’s only defense to a filibuster?What is the Senate’s only defense to a filibuster?
    5·2 answers
  • Explain the Proclamation Line of 1763?
    9·2 answers
  • Which of the following statements about the Civil War is FALSE? a. President Lincoln’s election caused several states to secede.
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!