Answer:
The North American fur trade, an aspect of the international fur trade, was the acquisition, trade, exchange, and sale of animal furs in North America. Aboriginal peoples and Native Americans of various regions of the present-day countries of Canada and the United States traded among themselves in the pre–Columbian Era. Europeans participated in the trade from the time of their arrival to Turtle Island, commonly referenced as the New World, extending the trade's reach to Europe. The French started trading in the 16th century, the English established trading posts on Hudson Bay in present-day Canada during the 17th century, while the Dutch had trade by the same time in New Netherland. The North American fur trade reached its peak of economic importance in the 19th century, and involved the development of elaborate trade-networks.
The fur trade became one of the main economic ventures in North America, attracting competition among the French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Swedes and Russians. Indeed, in the early history of the United States, capitalizing on this trade, and removing the British stranglehold over it, was seen[by whom?] as a major economic objective. Many Native American societies across the continent came to depend on the fur trade[when?] as their primary source of income. By the mid-1800s changing fashions in Europe brought about a collapse in fur prices. The American Fur Company and some other companies failed. Many Native communities were plunged into long-term poverty and consequently lost much of the political influence they once had.
Explanation:
Among the founders of the IWW were William D. (“Big Bill<span>”) </span>Haywood<span> of the Western Federation of Miners (WFM), </span>Daniel De Leon<span> of the </span>Socialist Labor Party, andEugene V. Debs<span> of the </span>Socialist Party<span>. </span>Debs<span> withdrew his support as the group grew more radical.</span>
The correct answers are A) Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, C) Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and E) Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.
<em>The results of a government </em><u><em>NOT ADHERING</em></u><em> to the rule of law could be the following: Laws change often and there is no standard process for deciding what will become law, Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, and Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens.</em>
The rule of law means that nobody, including the government, is above the law. The rule of law is doing this right by every single member in a society. No exceptions.
So The results of a government <em><u>NOT ADHERING</u></em> to the rule of law could be disastrous for the civic life in a society and the security of its citizens. Laws could change and for any reason, to the convenience of the officials. There would be a tendency for corruptive practices. Laws do not apply basic principles of fairness and morality, it could become the "law of the jungle," or the survivor of the fittest. And finally, Laws allow government officials to behave in any way, without adhering to the same laws as other citizens. This means that the powerful men in power can do whatever the like, and impose their will on people.
Northern states saw slavery as cruel and agianst humanity. Southern states saw slavery as the economic backbone of their economy and felt it was necessary.
