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
NISA [10]
4 years ago
10

Why were the fashions of pre revolutionary aristocrats so elaborate?

History
2 answers:
grin007 [14]4 years ago
8 0

Answer:

Before the American Revolution, and even after it, one thing that characterized the people of high society, from others, was their style of dressing, especially in women. The admired way was, the European way. As such, it was possible to see, in pre-Revolutionary America, men and women that could have been placed in the streets of London, or Paris, and not know the difference, except for their accent when they spoke.

The reason for this being the case was that to Americans, the ideal was to be seen as European, as this was perceived to be the peak of good breeding, and social status. Another issue was that colonists of high rank wanted to show that rank, and the more elaborate and outstanding their outfits, the better they would be seen in society.

Stolb23 [73]4 years ago
7 0
Aristocrats wanted it to be known that they had a lot of money and liked to flaunt their wealth.
You might be interested in
1. You've probably heard the statement, "You can't believe everything you read in newspapers or see on TV."
Leya [2.2K]
It means that when you go looking for information you should use credible information, usually sites that aren’t Wikipedia
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the Europeans have to use silver for trading with China
melisa1 [442]

Answer:

Because china went from using paper money to silver coins

8 0
3 years ago
Why was Lincoln forced to keep replacing his generals during the early years of the Civil War?
m_a_m_a [10]
Hey there!
The answer is A. because As promising as the Union outlook was at the beginning of the year, there would be many problems before 1863 ended. Lincoln would be forced to deal with numerous commanders who failed to understand that the main objective/idea of the Union military machine should be defeating the Confederate armies, not merely occupying enemy territory. Lincoln often had to beg his commanders to take action, or relieve and replace a general when he failed to prosecute the war in an aggressive manner.|||None of his Generals were of quality....or at least of the same quality that the Confederates had. The Union lost many of it's battles that were led by small time Generals. One General even asked Lincoln not to promote him to General because he knew he would fail.....he failed. When Sherman and Grant became the lead Generals, the war starts to turn. Sherman and Grant were the most aggressive of his Generals as well. Grant was known as the "Butcher" because so many men died under his command. However, he made a promise to Lincoln that he would not falter in his victory of the South.....no matter what the cost. It's for that reason that Lincoln kept him.|||There really isn't a bad answer in the bunch. I don't understand why there are so many thumbs down. Of course the answer is A. Lee was a genius. Possibly the best general that has ever commanded American troops. Grant wasn't a genius, just stubborn with (virtually) unlimited resources at his command.|||A. They were very timid against the rebel army. Lincoln forgave U.S. Grant almost everything including his alcoholism, when Grant rose to prominence, "because he fights", as Lincoln put it.|||E) "Nothing succeeds like success." Successful generals win battle after battle.
6 0
3 years ago
the work which speaks of the peoples right to select and remover rulers entiled the tenure of kings and magistrates​
kogti [31]

Answer:

That's true the work which speaks of the people's right to select and remover rulers entitled the tenure of kings and magistrates​

so the answer would be B because its the closest to the answer it can get

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
The Three-Fifths Compromise was rendered moot, or legally useless, by
klemol [59]

Answer:

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Explanation:

The Three-Fifths Compromise of the US Constitutional Convention is an agreement between the Northern and Southern states of America regarding the manner of population count that needs to be done for the basis of taxation and determining representation in the House of Representatives. This agreement is famous for its decision to count only three-fifths of the slave population for the population count.

This agreement not only wrongly number the slave population thereby leading to lesser representation in the House, but it also prevents landowners from paying the full tax on their property as only three-fifths of their slaves were accounted for.

This <u>Compromise was later rendered moot or useless by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution in its Section 2</u>. As Section 2 of the Amendment states <em>"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." </em>

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Disputes between county and city governments often arise over what? <br> Gold<br> Air<br> Land
    6·2 answers
  • HELPPPPPP!!!!
    7·2 answers
  • What is the fifth president name
    9·2 answers
  • The wilmot proviso, if it had passed, would have __________. allowed slavery in any area of the united states gained canada from
    5·1 answer
  • Lines for gas such as the one in this photograph resulted from
    10·1 answer
  • What is John Locke famous for?
    6·2 answers
  • What are the benefits and drawbacks of citizen journalism?
    10·2 answers
  • Plssssss help asap before this times out
    5·2 answers
  • How did the rise of invention and mass production change the view point of equality between men and women in the Northern Region
    6·1 answer
  • Which event most directly caused the Glorious Revolution?
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!