All categories

3 years ago

Why did farmers blame the banks and railroads for their economic problems

1 answer:

6 0

Many farmers were detractors of the establishment of banks and railroads, which were crucial and visible drivers of the economic progress in the country.

Farmers were suffering some times of hardship and they believed that, on one hand, railroad companies were taking over their lands and decreasing the amount of their harvests and also that banks were attracting and funding different types of businesses and economic activities that were the causes of their miseries, as the economic focus in general was shifting to them and investments on agricultural activities were severly affected.

These farmers could not see at first the big opportunities that these developments could bring to the agricultural sector. For instance, the accesibility to the railroad system would enhance the possibilities of trade of agricultural products, that could be supplied all over the country. Moreover, the banking system could offer farmers funding to expand their exploitations and to develop means to increase their productivity,enabling them to make profit from commerce activities in much bigger national-wide markets.

You might be interested in

The formal document, issued by the grand jury, which authorizes the government to proceed to trial against the defendant is call

Phoenix [80]

The formal document, issued by the grand jury, which authorizes the government to proceed to trial against the defendant is called the indictment. It is an accusation that is formal and written officially for a person that has committed a serious crime.

7 0

3 years ago

How did barbarian groups affect the Western Roman Empire?

Alecsey [184]

The answer to the question is A

4 0

2 years ago

Brainliest for whoever answers quickest and correctly

Black_prince [1.1K]

Answer:

1. D

2. A

3. C

4. The Democratic Party is making a serious blunder in criticizing President Roosevelt’s foreign policy .

There can result nothing but praise and admiration for the President’s policy.

Explanation:

In 1902, the European forces announced blockage on Venezuela due to the country’s rejection to resolve foreign debts. In consequence, the Roosevelt Corollary came into force.

In 1904, the US president Theodore Roosevelt put in force the Roosevelt Corollary, an extension to the Monroe doctrine. It assured the protection of the US over the countries of Latin America and its intervention in foreign affairs regarding the European countries.

The US had made it clear that they were a force to fear and Theodore Roosevelt was aware of that. They were an established military force as had been proven by its great victory against Spain in 1898.

This was what was pre-required for Roosevelt to exercise his Big Stick policy: the country had to have proven capable to strike, but peaceful and willing to negotiate at a time. It seemed to work as Germany decided to back off on Venezuelan blockage after the US intervention.

Before the completion of the Panama Canal, the US trade route was incredibly long and devastating. On top, the perishable goods would have spoiled during the (at least) three-month-long trip.

The Panama Canal facilitated all of that. The US boats had a significantly shorter route to take, the former time was cut and it allowed faster shipping, lower fuel costs, and therefore – more trade.

The Democratic Party is making a serious blunder in criticizing President Roosevelt’s foreign policy

In this sentence, it is the word blunder that suggests the writer’s attitude on the matter. A blunder is a stupid mistake committed out of ignorance. The use of this type of word originates from a subjective point of view.

There can result nothing but praise and admiration for the President’s policy.

The author of the text is clearly taking sides, as he assures that there is only one possible way to think of the President Roosevelt’s policy: nothing but praise and admiration.

7 0

3 years ago

Why did Native Americans develop different cultures?

viktelen [127]

The different cultures were established in Asia and carried into the Americas. B. Constant warfare among the different Native American groups led to cultural differences.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

According to Gibbons v. Ogden, a state

puteri [66]

According to Gibbons v. Ogden, a state can not interfere with the power of congress to regulate commerce.

Explanation:

The case of Gibbons and the Ogden was presented in the Supreme Court in the United States of America. It was in the year 1824 and was one of the most important cases of that time.

According to this case, a principle was established and it established a legislative enactment. According to this, a state could not interfere in the power of the congress and the power that was talked about in this principle was about interfering with the regulation of the commerce. It was only in the hand of the congress and not with the states.

3 0

3 years ago