Answer:
The Answer is gonna be C) Trade for them,
Answer:
American Indians had a history of being helpful to French settlers
Explanation:
Unlike other European settlers in America, French settlers enjoyed a considerable level of good relationship with the American Indians. This can be attributed to French style of forcing to change the American Indians, but only care about the trading fur with them. This in turn made American Indians not to be hostile towards French Settler. They sometimes engaged them in hunting of animals, and particularly those they can derive fur from them. Such interesting relationship or alliance, made the American Indians had a history of being helpful to French settlers
Answer:
Along the coast of North Africa sea port cities developed such as Marrakesh, Tunis, and Cairo. The port city of Adulis on the Red Sea was also an important trade center. The major trade routes moved goods across the Sahara Desert between Western/Central Africa and the port trade centers along the Mediterranean Sea.
Answer:
The Pullman Strike and Loewe Vs Lawlor
Explanation:
The Pullman Strike was an organised strike by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Company. The strike closed off many of the nations railroad traffic. Workers of the Pullman company had gone on strike in response to a reduction in wages and when this was unsuccessful, they increased their efforts and with the help of the AFU took it nationwide. They refused to couple or move any train that carried a Pullman car. At its peak the strike included 250,000 workers in 27 states.The federal government's response was to obtain an injunction against the union and to order them to stop interfering with trains. When they refused, President Cleveland sent in the army to stop strikers from interfering with the trains. Violence broke out and the strike collapsed. The leaders were sentenced to prison and the ARU dissolved.
Loewe V Lawlor was a Supreme Court decision that went against the rights of the labour movement. D. E. Loewe & Company had been subjected to a strike and a boycott as a result of it becoming an 'open shop'. The nationwide boycott was supported by the American Federation of Labor and persuaded retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from Loewe. This boycott cost him a large amount of money and he sued the union for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act (Another piece of legislation subsequently used to attack unions).
The case was sent to the US Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, which found that the lawsuit was out of the scope of the Sherman Act. However, upon appeal it then went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of Loewe. The courts decision was important for two reasons. Firstly it allowed individual unionists to be held personally responsible for damages arising from the activities of their unions. Secondly, it effectively outlawed secondary boycott (Where members of different companies boycott in solidarity with the affected workers) as a violation of the Sherman Act. Both of these limited the ability of the unions to bring about change through striking and boycott.
Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/13463190#readmore
