Hello. You forgot to add the text to which this question refers. The text is:
Pennsylvania created the most radical state constitution of the period. Following the idea of popular rule to its logical conclusion, Pennsylvania created a state government with several distinctive features. First, the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 abolished property requirements for voting as well as for holding office. If you were an adult man who paid taxes, then you were allowed to vote or even to run for office. This was a dramatic expansion of who was considered a political person, but other aspects of the new state government were even more radical. Pennsylvania also became a "unicameral" government where the legislature only had one body. Furthermore, the office of the governor was entirely eliminated. Radicals in Pennsylvania observed that the governor was really just like a small-scale king and that an upper legislative body (like the House of Lords in Parliament) was supposed to represent wealthy men and aristocrats. Rather than continue those forms of government, the Pennsylvania constitution decided that "the people" could rule most effectively through a single body with complete legislative power.
Answer:
The Pennsylvania Constitution established a unicameral legislative body.
The Pennsylvania Constitution abolished property requirements for voting and holding elected office.
Explanation:
The text above shows how Pennsylvania created a constitution a totally different and radical constitution compared to other American states. This is because Pennsylvania, through its constitution, modified its entire political body, creating a more popular structure and accessible to all citizens. The main changes occurred in terms of who could vote and stand and how the state's legislative body would be established. In summary, these changes are:
- The Pennsylvania Constitution established a unicameral legislative body.
- The Pennsylvania Constitution abolished property requirements for voting and holding elected office.
Answer:
Why were the Articles of Confederation so weak?
- the colonists feared a government that would be too much like the British king
Define an Indentured Servant
- a person who signed a 7 year contract to work for someone in order to come to the colonies
Explanation:
1. Why were the Articles of Confederation so weak?
After finally getting rid of the British, the colonists feared a powerful government that would have a choke hold over the colonies. The Government in the AoC had no power to inforce laws, collect taxes, no courts, there needed to be unanimous votes, etc.
2. Define an Indentured Servant
An indentured servan is a person who signs indentures to work for another for a specified time in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.
Answer is -<span>The magna carta gave them direction, so they probably wouldn't know what to do</span>
Answer:
The trans-Saharan trade was an important gateway for the spread of Islam in Africa. The legacy of the medieval empires and nineteenth century reform movements continues to have relevance in present day Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Nigeria, as well as many neighboring communities. The main items traded were gold and salt. The gold mines of West Africa provided great wealth to West African Empires such as Ghana and Mali. Other items that were commonly traded included ivory, kola nuts, cloth, slaves, metal goods, and beads.
