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
-Dominant- [34]
4 years ago
6

What were the outcomes of the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment? Check all that apply.

History
2 answers:
Alex4 years ago
7 0

Options A, B, and E, are the right answers.

The  15th Amendment in the constitution of the America, granted the equal right to vote to the African American men. Though the Amendment provided the people of the America with equal voting rights bu the actual implementation of the rules could only be seen after a century. The Southern states through the use of the literary tests and poll taxes were able to effectively deprive the African American community.  


Harrizon [31]4 years ago
4 0

The outcomes of the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment were:

-Equal voting rights were upheld constitutionally.

-The right to vote was expanded to more Americans.

-Southern lawmakers created poll taxes and literacy tests in response.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that governments in the United States can not prevent a citizen from voting because of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude (slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870. But it was not until the Voting Rights Act in 1965, almost a century later, that the full promise of the fifteenth amendment was actually achieved in all states. Before the 1890s, many southern states imposed stringent voter qualification laws, including literacy tests and taxes. Some states even made it difficult to find a place to register to vote.

You might be interested in
Why was Austria-Hungary’s casualty rate higher than Germany’s?
GaryK [48]

Answer:

b

Explanation:

cause Germany had a lower number of total forces than Austria-Hungary did.

7 0
3 years ago
Read 3 more answers
Was the act of filing case of treason against Dr. K I Singh right? why?​
77julia77 [94]

Answer:

Explanation:

Kunwar Indrajit Singh (Nepali: कुँवर इन्द्रजीत सिंह; 1906 – 4 October 1982) or Kunwar Inderjit Singh, popularly known as Dr. K.I. Singh or just K.I. Singh was a Nepali politician and revolutionary who served as the 20th Prime Minister of Nepal in 1957.[1] He was a key Nepali Congress organizer in the 1951 Nepali Revolution, and was a leader in its militant wing, the Muktisena,[2] who later refused to recognize the Delhi Accord and was forced to flee the country following a revolt he took part in.[3] In 1955 he returned and formed the United Democratic Party, and following the installation of the Panchayat system, was also elected as a member to the Rastriya Panchayat. He was known as the "Robin Hood of the Himalayas", and was very popular throughout the country

8 0
3 years ago
Which passage provides the more effective argument, and why? Passage 1 is more effective because passage 2 relies on personal an
PilotLPTM [1.2K]

Answer:

Passage 1 is more effective because passage 2 relies on personal anecdotes as the main evidence.

Explanation:

The first passage makes more effective evidence because while it relies on data and figures, the second portion relies on personal incidents as its main evidence.

The first passage makes very reasonable and logical reasoning about the importance of video games in the life of juveniles and how there has been a reduction in juvenile offenses while there have been in video game sales.

However, the second passage uses personal encounters with her children to make a discussion which is not relevant at all but rather a request to emotion.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which statement would most likely be made by someone who supported
miv72 [106K]

Answer:

C

Explanation:

The 19th-century doctrine or belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the Roman Empire split in two?
Ad libitum [116K]

Answer:

The Empire was too large for one person to rule.

Explanation:

In 285 AD, Emperor Diocletian decided that the Roman Empire was too big to manage. He divided the Empire into two parts, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. Over the next hundred years or so, Rome would be reunited, split into three parts, and split in two again.

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • One central belief of christianity is that
    8·1 answer
  • What happened to the citizens of Puerto Rico after the treaty of paris
    5·1 answer
  • In texas, why were primary elections more important than general elections during most of the twentieth century?
    14·1 answer
  • How does the practice of Islam effect the world
    11·2 answers
  • In the presidential election of 1824, no single candidate won a majority of electoral votes the or false
    14·2 answers
  • How did The Civil War impact the union and confederacy socially, politically, and economically?
    12·1 answer
  • Identify two geographic features that may impact the development of civilizations in ancient greece?
    10·1 answer
  • Why did they think marco polo was a fraud? explain.
    6·1 answer
  • Benito Mussolini became known as
    9·1 answer
  • Some of the Sik Road trade routes were 20.000 mies long<br> O True<br> O False
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!