The nations who either had or wanted to have colonies in the New World or Africa wanted these colonies to bring them a massive amount of natural resources and riches, such as cotton, tobacco, gold, silver, etc--which were wildly profitable.
In some instances, Federal officials expedited the naming process by furnishing the names themselves, and invariably the name would be the same as that of the freedman’s most recent master. But these appear to have been exceptional cases; the ex-slaves themselves usually took the initiative—like the Virginia mother who changed the name of her son from Jeff Davis, which was how the master had known him, to Thomas Grant, which seemed to suggest the freedom she was now exercising. Whatever names the freed slaves adopted, whether that of a previous master, a national leader, an occupational skill, a place of residence, or a color, they were most often making that decision themselves. That was what mattered.
Answer:
The South valued slaves more because they used them as workers in farming and agriculture.The South had a lot of fertile land which they used to their advantage in the cotton and tobacco industry. The north was more abolitionist and supportive of getting rid of slavery while the stubborn South wanted to keep their ways of life in place. They (the North) focused on becoming more modern and industrialized and more city-like. The North expanded their economy and built more factories and job opportunities, while the South focused on farming.
Explanation:
That would be my answer.
Answer:
Speakers of Athabaskan languages often use the same term for a language and its associated ethnic group (similar to the use of ‘English’ for both a language and a people), typically naming these with some form of ‘person’ or ‘human,’ as with Navajo diné.
