What is the exact question can you be more clear with it
National and state constitutions included little mention of women. Even though Hoosier women were enumerated in the census which paved the way for statehood and had to share the burden of taxation, they were not allowed to vote or hold office. Rights for which a revolution was fomented were denied women – as they were to slaves, "lunatics," and "idiots."
Further exacerbating the situation, rights normally enjoyed by women were often withdrawn when she married. Indeed, a woman gave up so many civil and property rights upon crossing the threshold that she was said to be entering a state of "civil death." This unhappy circumstance arose partially because American (and Indiana) law was based upon English common law. Predicated on "precedent and fixed principles," common law had dictated a subordinate position for women. Married women generally were not allowed to make contracts, devise wills, take part in other legal transactions, or control any wages they might earn. One of the few legal advantages of marriage for a woman was that her husband was obligated to support her and be responsible for her debts. It is highly doubtful that these latter provisions outweighed the lack of other rights, particularly in the area women faced the most severe restriction, property rights.
This question is missing the excerpt. I've found the complete question online. The word in bold is as follows:
That is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress to again recommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aid to the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, the people whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States...
Answer:
The meaning of the word in bold is:
A. Financial.
Explanation:
The word "pecuniary" is used to refer to anything related to or consisting of money. For instance, if you are given a pecuniary gift, that means you are given money. In the excerpt above, President Lincoln states he is going to recommend a financial support (pecuniary aid) to certain states in order to prevent their rebellion against the United States as well as encourage the abolition of slavery.
Stevenson requests a direct appeal of Walter’s conviction. In his written brief, he notes several flaws in Walter’s case, including faulty witness testimonies, State misconduct, racial bias in jury selection, and an unnecessary judge override of the jury’s life sentence. At the appeals court in Montgomery, Stevenson appears before Chief Judge John Patterson, the KKK-backed former Alabama governor notorious for resisting de-segregation and refusing to allow law enforcement to protect the Freedom Riders from violent mobs. At the end of Stevenson’s oral argument, Judge Patterson responds by asking Stevenson where he is from. Stevenson, caught off guard, responds that he “lives in Montgomery.” Stevenson regrets dissuading Walter’s family from requesting time off to travel to Montgomery, now wondering if their supportive presence would have helped distinguish Walter’s case. The State’s lawyer defends Walter’s conviction as “routine” and his sentence as “appropriately imposed.” Judge Patterson denies the appeal.
Stevenson encourages Walter to remain hopeful because they have new evidence and several remaining options, including a reconsideration of the direct appeal decision. Stevenson recently hired Michael O’Connor, a son of Irish immigrants and recovered heroin addict originally from a rough neighborhood. Though Michael regards his history of addiction with regret, Stevenson sees his background as an asset to their work. Stevenson and his colleagues have discovered records showing that county officials paid Bill Hooks and “somehow” had his city criminal charges dropped, which is information that the State should legally have disclosed pre-trial. They also found flyers advertising the fish fry held at Walter’s house, which confirmed it was held the day of the murder. They contacted Walter’s mechanic, who discredited Bill Hook’s testimony by confirming that the mechanic modified Walter’s truck six months after Ronda’s murder. Finally, a clerk at the store where Myers was asked to identify Walter confirms that Myers had to ask which black man was Walter.
Stevenson’s determination to pursue all available recourses for Walter demonstrates his perseverance and commitment to this case. Stevenson’s positive reaction to Michael’s story of addiction serves to reinforce the book’s emphasis on the importance of redemption. By framing Michael’s past mistakes as assets, Stevenson implies that he values having staff members who can identify with the population they serve. Michael’s past allows him to see clients as more fully human, and enables clients to trust Michael more easily. Stevenson implies that county officials conducted illegal activity, which they intentionally hid. Further, he implies that the corruption included collaboration with city, everything.”
