King John ruled England for almost two decades (1199-1216) and was well known as a heavy handed ruler. He would often wage unnecessary wars and burden his subjects with heavy taxes to pay for them. King John begrudgingly signed the Magna Carta because he needed the barons to fight his wars and collect his taxes.
Answer:
Gerrymandering (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/,[1][2]) is a practice intended to establish an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries, which is most commonly used in first-past-the-post electoral systems.
Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).[3] The top-left diagram in the graphic is a form of cracking where the majority party uses its superior numbers to guarantee the minority party never attains a majority in any district.
In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in Northern Ireland where boundaries were constructed to guarantee Protestant Unionist majorities.[4] The U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities are known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents. Wayne Dawkings describes it as politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians.[5]
The term gerrymandering is named after Elbridge Gerry (pronounced like "Gary"[2]), who, as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compared to the shape of a mythological salamander. The term has negative connotations and gerrymandering is almost always considered a corruption of the democratic process
Yes, moderate republicans wanted the reconstruction plan while radical republicans thought reconstruction was too lenient toward the south and wasn’t harsh enough due to the fact they caused the war. The radical republicans plan was to disband the aristocracy with farming, redistribute land and guarantee the civil rights to former slaves.
By the 1960s, a generation of white Americans raised in prosperity and steeped in the culture of conformity of the 1950s had come of age. However, many of these baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964) rejected the conformity and luxuries that their parents had provided. These young, middle-class Americans, especially those fortunate enough to attend college when many of their working-class and African American contemporaries were being sent to Vietnam, began to organize to fight for their own rights and end the war that was claiming the lives of so many.
THE NEW LEFT
By 1960, about one-third of the U.S. population was living in the suburbs; during the 1960s, the average family income rose by 33 percent. Material culture blossomed, and at the end of the decade, 70 percent of American families owned washing machines, 83 percent had refrigerators or freezers, and almost 80 percent had at least one car. Entertainment occupied a larger part of both working- and middle-class leisure hours. By 1960, American consumers were spending $85 billion a year on entertainment, double the spending of the preceding decade; by 1969, about 79 percent of American households had black-and-white televisions, and 31 percent could afford color sets. Movies and sports were regular aspects of the weekly routine, and the family vacation became an annual custom for both the middle and working class.
I'll answer this question with some of my general knowledge. Let me know if I helped you or not.
I believe officials were opposed to labor unions when they began to acknowledge how much of a threat it would be to manufacturing and other sorts of jobs. Labor Unions are similar to going on strike, or protesting something. With protesting laborers, businesses and factories would drop in revenue and would become unproductive. They would end up having to increase pay and improve working conditions to earn their workers back. This is equivalent to the loss of income for businesses.
I believe times changed in the 1930 because the American economy was extremely poor. The 1930's was the time of The Great Depression, multiple stock market crashes, and The Dust Bowl. These events hit hard and poverty became <em>wide spread. </em>
Hope I answered your question :)
