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
xenn [34]
3 years ago
12

Why did Europeans see Africans as a better source of labor than Native Americans?

History
2 answers:
Paladinen [302]3 years ago
6 0
Maybe because they knew they were taking the Indian's land so they knew they were going to fight so they had to kill them... but the blacks who were slaves were sold to Americans so no war or anything happened between them ... they knew the Slaves could not fight and if they did they would still have control
docker41 [41]3 years ago
3 0
Here's a reason why: Africans were strangers to the Americans. Because the Africans were poor, they didn't have any allies to watch out for them or to protect them.
You might be interested in
How did the U.S. government protect the Pentagon in 1967?
UNO [17]
I think its C. they staged a counter-demonstration. I may be wrong. 

8 0
3 years ago
 One major cause of tension between Israel and Palestine iso
svet-max [94.6K]

Answer:

The attacks.

Explanation:

For years now Israel has been under rocket barrages. We have been sending aid to them. These include planes like the F-15 Eagle and the F-15 E Strike Eagle. Also F-16 Fighting Falcon known as the Viper by the crews. Palestine has been trying to capture Israel. The muslims hate the Jews. The terrorist organizations like the Taliban have been a huge threat to Israel`s well-being.

5 0
3 years ago
Explain what the great compromise was? <br><br> Help me please
grin007 [14]

Answer:

July 16, 1987, began with a light breeze, a cloudless sky, and a spirit of celebration. On that day, 200 senators and representatives boarded a special train for a journey to Philadelphia to celebrate a singular congressional anniversary.

Exactly 200 years earlier, the framers of the U.S. Constitution, meeting at Independence Hall, had reached a supremely important agreement. Their so-called Great Compromise (or Connecticut Compromise in honor of its architects, Connecticut delegates Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth) provided a dual system of congressional representation. In the House of Representatives each state would be assigned a number of seats in proportion to its population. In the Senate, all states would have the same number of seats. Today, we take this arrangement for granted; in the wilting-hot summer of 1787, it was a new idea.

In the weeks before July 16, 1787, the framers had made several important decisions about the Senate’s structure. They turned aside a proposal to have the House of Representatives elect senators from lists submitted by the individual state legislatures and agreed that those legislatures should elect their own senators.

By July 16, the convention had already set the minimum age for senators at 30 and the term length at six years, as opposed to 25 for House members, with two-year terms. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on “the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character,” would allow the Senate “to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch.”

The issue of representation, however, threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more to the nation’s financial and defensive resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Small-state delegates demanded, with comparable intensity, that all states be equally represented in both houses. When Sherman proposed the compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters—except those involving money.

Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin’s proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a heart-stopping margin of one vote. As the 1987 celebrants duly noted, without that vote, there would likely have been no Constitution.

Explanation:

Hope I helped!

3 0
3 years ago
During the first territorial stage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Congress
torisob [31]
They had to walk the north west river it the longest river
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the effect of the supreme court case McCulloch v. Maryland?
REY [17]
The correct answer will be b
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • How did William Penn try to attract new settlers to his colony in Pennsylvania?
    9·1 answer
  • What fledgling technology was ignored prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor? Why was it ignored?
    9·1 answer
  • You are living in the mid-1600s. You and your family are currently finalizing your plans to immigrate to the British colonies. Y
    7·1 answer
  • How was the election process in France?​
    9·1 answer
  • Why did Vasco de Gama enter India?
    5·1 answer
  • Which pair of ancient civilizations were ruled by dynasties?
    12·2 answers
  • Why did the US fight in Iraq?
    12·1 answer
  • The right of the people to decide about issues by voting is referred to as —
    9·1 answer
  • 9. The phrase belligerent crowd
    8·2 answers
  • In the Virginia General Assembly, what must happen directly before<br> voting on a bill?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!