Samuel Tilden won the 1876 presidential election after a recount
Explanation:
- The 1877 compromise is unusual because it was not reached after an open debate in the US Congress. It was primarily made behind the scenes and there are hardly any written records. It emerged from a contentious presidential election that was, however, harsh with the old North vs. South problems, this time involving the last three southern states that still controlled Republican reconstruction governments.
- The timing of the treaty was prompted by the presidential election of 1876 between Democrat Samuel B. Tilden, governor of New York, and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, governor of Ohio.
- When the votes were counted, Tilden led Hayes by one vote in the Electoral College. But Republicans accused Democrats of voting for fraud, saying they intimidated African-American voters in three southern states, Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina, and prevented them from voting, thereby defrauding Tilden's election surrender.
Learn more on Rutherford Hayes on
brainly.com/question/522546
brainly.com/question/10331300
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
A
Explanation:
The stunning success at Saratoga gave Franklin what he had been pleading for – explicit French support in the war. King Louis XVI approved negotiations to that end. With Franklin negotiating for the United States, the two countries agreed to a pair of treaties, signed on Feb.
I believe that would b B. The British closed down the Boston harbor completely
Think about the idea here and you'll see how the idea of "cost" is inevitable in every decision. (It's true not just of governments, but of our own decisions too -- but we'll focus on governments here.)
Let's say the government decides it wants all citizens to have access to health care. Well, that's going to cost dollars to pay for that health care. Where will those dollars come from?
Let's say the government decides, in response to school shootings or other acts of gun violence, to ban certain types of guns or ammunition. That costs something to the gun dealers who were making money off those sales (and they'll object). Or let's say the government decides to do further and deeper background checks on all gun buyers. Well, that will cost something in terms of personnel and processes to accomplish all the background checks. Or let's say the government decides to increase mental health screenings and treatment because persons with mental illness issues may become violent and dangerous to society. That will cost much in order to organize and carry out better mental health intervention across the country.
I focused on just a couple issues there (health care, gun control). But the same principle holds on anything government does. You can think about your own examples that you'd want to use. Anything the government decides to do comes with some sort of costs attached. That doesn't mean it's bad to make such decisions -- it just means we need to count the cost and invest our efforts where they will have the best benefit.
