The incumbent President, Paul von Hindenburg, first elected<span> in 1925, was re-</span>elected<span>to a second seven-year term of </span>office<span>. His major opponent in the election was Adolf </span>Hitler<span> of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). ... Under this political climate, Hindenburg reluctantly appointed </span>Hitler<span> as Chancellor of </span>Germany<span> in January 1933.</span>
Answer:
During the 1700s, people in different colonies produced different kinds of things to sell. For example, people in the southern colonies produced cotton and tobacco while people in the New England colonies produced ships and whale oil. People in the different colonies then sold the things they made to the people in the other colonies
How did this voluntary trade benefit people in both regions?
A. It made it possible for them to have things that they could not produce themselves.
B. It meant that they did not have to buy anything from England.
C. It meant that they did not have to sell anything to England
D. It made it possible for them to have things that they could not afford to pay for.
Explanation:
The answer is A because B said that they did not have to buy anything from England but england is the place that is producing and selling products and C is wrong because yes England my produce multiple products but England still needs resources and D is also wrong because they said they sold all the items and not that they were free
for 10 years, kept the Chinese from immigrating to the United States in search of jobs.
The Scopes Trial, formally known as The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, was an American legal case in May 1925 in which a substitute high school teacher, John T. Scopes, was accused of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it unlawful to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.[1] The trial was deliberately staged in order to attract publicity to the small town of Dayton, Tennessee, where it was held.[citation needed] Scopes was unsure whether he had ever actually taught evolution, but he purposely incriminated himself so that the case could have a defendant.[citation needed]
Scopes was found guilty and fined $100 ($1366 in 2016), but the verdict was overturned on a technicality. The trial served its purpose of drawing intense national publicity, as national reporters flocked to Dayton to cover the big-name lawyers who had agreed to represent each side. William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate, argued for the prosecution, while Clarence Darrow, the famed defense attorney, spoke for Scopes. The trial publicized the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy, which set Modernists, who said evolution was not inconsistent with religion,[2] against Fundamentalists, who said the word of God as revealed in the Bible took priority over all human knowledge. The case was thus seen as both a theological contest and a trial on whether "modern science" should be taught in schools.
Answer:
Im pretty sure the answer is D.
Explanation:
