Abolitionists wanted the Dred Scott case to be heard by the courts because this would bring slavery to the forefront and Congress would be forced to deal with the issue. Why? Well, see below for an explanation!
Let’s start by addressing what the Dred Scott case was and how it affected former slaves and blacks as a whole. The Dred Scott v. Sanford case was a situation that occurred during the times of slavery (year of 1857). Dred Scott’s slave owner passed away and Scott offered that he buy his freedom. The Chief Justice in court at the time sought an opportunity to settle that blacks were inferior. When the case was heard in Supreme Court, the ruling came out explicitly that black people were inferior and had no rights as far as the white man. Under these circumstances, it was implied that Dred Scott could not purchase his freedom as could a white man. Abolitionists also saw this as an opportunity though because they wanted the conflict of slavery to be addressed publicly and with a straightforward response/resolution. If you need any extra help, let me know and I will gladly assist you.
Answer:
There are four types of externalities : Positive consumption, Negative consumption, positive production and negative production. The Acid rain and the pollution emitted by the factories can pollute the environment and affect the health of nearby residents. The negative externalities occur when external costs are imposed on the third party which is outside the market due to consumption and production and no compensation is paid to them.
Answer:
How many KKK members were there in the 1920s?: 2-5 million.
How many people were lynched in the 1920s?: 6500+
Explanation:
Answer:
The flaws in China’s political system are obvious. The government doesn’t even make a pretense of holding national elections and punishes those who openly call for multiparty rule. The press is heavily censored and the Internet is blocked. Top leaders are unconstrained by the rule of law. Even more worrisome, repression has been ramped up since Xi Jinping took power in 2012, suggesting that the regime is increasingly worried about its legitimacy.
The Democracy Report
Some China experts—most recently David Shambaugh of George Washington University—interpret these ominous signs as evidence that the Chinese political system is on the verge of collapse. But such an outcome is highly unlikely in the near future. The Communist Party is firmly in power, its top leader is popular, and no political alternative currently claims widespread support. And what would happen if the Party’s power did indeed crumble? The most likely result, in my view, would be rule by a populist strongman backed by elements of the country’s security and military forces. The new ruler might seek to buttress his legitimacy by launching military adventures abroad. President Xi would look tame by comparison.
A more realistic and, arguably, desirable outcome would involve political change that builds on the advantages of the current system. But what exactly are the good parts of the Chinese political model? And how can they be advanced without repression? I believe the model can be improved in a more open political environment and, eventually, put before the people in a popular referendum.
Answer:
Their goal is to allow children of color to succeed academically and creatively by giving them as equal of an opportunity as their peers have. By providing resources such as Wi-Fi and a gateway to speak to their community leaders, they hope to reach this goal.
Hope this helps you! ^^
