The following statements explains what happened during the Haymarket Square incident,
- "Public fear of anarchists and foreigners led to false accusations"
- "Rally leaders were illegally arrested and convicted"
- "A peaceful labor rally ended with a bomb exploding"
<u>Explanation:</u>
The Haymarket Affair (otherwise called the Haymarket Massacre, Haymarket Riot, or Haymarket Square Riot) was the fallout of a bombing that occurred at a work exhibition on May 4, 1886, at Haymarket Square in Chicago.
The rally started on 4th May and Albert Parsons, August Spies, and Samuel Fielden addressed the crowd who gathered for a peaceful negotiation of the worker's rights estimated from 600 to 3,000 in a open wagon near square on Des Plaines Street.
After the rally started, police arrived in group at around 10.30 pm and ordered the crowd rallying to disperse. Home-made bomb filled with dynamite was thrown in the path of the police coming towards them. At once after the bombing, gunshots were exchanged.
Arrest and conviction:
- 8 agitators were accused of plotting and doing the shelling (despite the fact that proof against them was powerless)
- 4 were hung, 1 self-murdered in jail, 3 were detained until John Peter Altgeld drove their sentences in 1893
Answer:
Here you go
Explanation:
1-E
2-L
3-M
4-B
5-C
6-A
7-K
8-G
9-H
10-J
11-I
12-F
13-N
14-D
Make this brainliest , please and thank you
France expected that their colonies would always be part of France. Britain trained their colonies to be self-governing.
Answer:
Yes because they all have checks and balances. Do you think the three branches of government share their power equally? ... Also recognizes that states and citizens have all powers not delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states.
Explanation:
That is correct
Answer:
A. It would allow the delegates to speak openly and honestly with each other
D. It would prevent the delegates from being pressured by the public
Explanation:
A. It would allow the delegates to speak openly and honestly with each other
[] With the secrecy rule, the delegates could speak openly since this would not reach the public. It helped to let them make decisions since there was less pressure from the public (ties into option D).
D. It would prevent the delegates from being pressured by the public
[] If the public didn't know what was going on, they could not pressure
The second and third options do not make sense because the delegates wanted everyone to attend (they also wanted the votes to be as unanimous as possible) and they were not planning specific military strategies at this time.
Have a nice day!
I hope this is what you are looking for, but if not - comment! I will edit and update my answer accordingly.
- Heather
