Answer: He greatly supported the Confederacy, meaning that Texas joined their side during the Civil War.
Explanation:
After he was elected governor of Texas in 1861, Lubbock took steps to increase Texas' miltary strength. He greatly supported the draft imposed by the Confederacy of able-(white) men, going as far as to oppose or deny conscription excemptions, recomending white cattle ranchers to use slaves in order to free up white workers who could be conscripted and incorporated into the Confederate army. He also set out to build military facilities and factories in Texas to aid in the war effort against the Union. He organized Civil Courts not recognized as legitimate, imprisoning or linching suspected Union supporters in Texas. After the end of his term as governor, he joined the Confederate army as Liutenant Colonel.
Explanation:
mercantilism, economic theory and practice common in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It was the economic counterpart of political absolutism.
<span>Because we have a one-man, one-vote Constitution. So why should (for one example) Betsy Prince DeVos, who has only one vote, have an outsized influence on public policy?She has influence out of all proportion to her one vote because she’s extremely wealthy, can afford to donate to candidates she and her family favor, and she has said that they keep track of who receives their donations, and how they vote on the issues that matter to Betsy and her DeVos and Prince relatives.One thing they want is lower taxes because even though they have more money than they can spend, they’re still greedy. If the abortion that the Republicans call tax “reform” is actually passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump, it will be because of megabucks donors like Betsy.If it is, it will benefit Betsy and her relatives, but it will not benefit the nation as a whole. No one on either side of the political spectrum should have that kind of influence.</span>
<span />
Answer:
The goal of voting is to elect representatives by the voice of the people. However when only two parties are allowed to run, American choices are restricted by limited views and only given two choices. This restriction seems to be effective, but is simple not accomplishing the goal of electing the representatives the people actually want. <u>This argument says that a 2 parties system is bad </u>
Here is another argument
While the constitution does not provide language that explicitly endorses a two party system, a great deal of its laws perpetuate their existence like the electoral college and plurality voting. The electoral college makes it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to win any given office by discouraging votes in individual states amongst other things. Likewise, plurality voting, which guarantees the candidate with the majority of votes wins, generally favors two opposing sides as time goes by. This is only made stronger by the fact that The majority of Americans seem to lean towards the right or left, with a small percentage staying in between. As long as these systems are in place, a two party system will naturally prevail. <u>This argument says that the 2 parties system is good.</u>
Explanation:
It's just how you look at really if you think its bad then your think its bad same goes for the person who says its good. It's just an opinion. But each side will have supporting facts and details.
Answer:
Having a strong central government allows important decisions to be made and tasks to be done, for example a strong central government has the ability to collect taxes. Representation from the states in this government would ensure it was beneficial to everyone, not just the rich and powerful.
Explanation:
