The statement that supports the notion that <em>all people are not created equal</em> is <u>[3</u>] <u>Slavery Expansion and Indian Removal</u>.
<h3>What are the notions of slavery expansion and Indian Removal?</h3>
Slavery expansion ensured that the Southwest, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas entrenched slavery.
This expansion of slavery was supported by the cotton gin and shows disdain for African Americans.
The removal of Indians shows that they are not created equal to white Americans, who occupied their ancestral lands.
Thus, Thomas Jefferson's policies supported expanding slavery into the new western parts of the country and removing American Indians from the land on which their families had lived for generations, to show that<em> all people are not created equal</em>.
Learn more about slavery expansion and Indian removal at brainly.com/answer expert verified
#SPJ1
American imperialism” is a term that refers to the economic, military, and cultural influence of the United States on other countries. First popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk, the concept of an “American Empire” was made a reality throughout the latter half of the 1800s. During this time, industrialization caused American businessmen to seek new international markets in which to sell their goods. In addition, the increasing influence of social Darwinism led to the belief that the United States was inherently responsible for bringing concepts such as industry, democracy, and Christianity to less developed “savage” societies. The combination of these attitudes and other factors led the United States toward imperialism.
The American Anti-Imperialist League was an organization established in the United States on June 15, 1898, to battle the American annexation of the Philippines as an insular area. The League also argued that the Spanish-American War was a war of imperialism camouflaged as a war of liberation. The anti-imperialists opposed the expansion because they believed imperialism violated the credo of republicanism, especially the need for “consent of the governed.” They did not oppose expansion on commercial, constitutional, religious, or humanitarian grounds; rather, they believed that the annexation and administration of third-world tropical areas would mean the abandonment of American ideals of self-government and isolation—ideals expressed in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, George Washington ‘s Farewell Address, and Abraham Lincoln ‘s Gettysburg Address. The Anti-Imperialist League represented an older generation and was rooted in an earlier era; they were defeated in terms of public opinion, the 1900 election, and the actions of Congress and the president because most younger Progressives who were just coming to power supported imperialism.
Depending on the time you mean "born" (Independence, when the Constitution was ratified, etc) all states had state legislatures and governors, who were responsible for the long-term affairs of each state.
The was the dust bowl and drought where crops died due to lack of water.
This is one of those questions that is near impossible to answer.
The best I can give you, based upon my reading, is that it is likely that slavery would have continued for quite a while longer. Over time, though, it would have held a diminished role in society as the South industrialized. The advent of the assembly line would have further pushed the decline.
Holding slaves was a morally bankrupt AND expensive endeavor. For a long time, the cost benefit analysis for slave owners was that they could get years of work out of a person without wages. Eventually, with technology, this would have made the institution less of a good "investment," combined with moral pressure as most of the Western world divested itself from slavery.
So, you'd likely see a more pronounced version of our de facto slavery with migrant farm workers in the United States.
