1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Lyrx [107]
3 years ago
15

Why did Jefferson write rather vaguely about the complaints rather than listing the specific acts of the British that had so ali

enated the colonists?
History
2 answers:
Julli [10]3 years ago
8 0
He described the acts in general terms so that those in other, colonies, countries or, perhaps, in future generations could understand the gist of the complaints and relate to this and may use it as an example or a template if they wish to be independent.
SSSSS [86.1K]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

The correct answer is that Jefferson did not want to alianate different people by being specific, if he talked about the general problem many citizen would feel related to it.

Explanation:

In general people have an easier time understanding problem in a general way than specific events.

You might be interested in
What decision did the Supreme Court reach in Dred Scott v. Sandford?
loris [4]

Answer:

There have been many decisions in the history of the US Supreme Court that are hard to call democratic. In the British North American colonies, and then in the USA, the legal foundations of the institution of slavery were created. The English legal system ruled out slavery, but gradually in the local laws of the colonies, and later in the Constitution of the United States and in the case-law of the Supreme Court of the United States, the grounds were formulated on which slaves were considered not to be human subjects, but property. This practice has led to the fact that, shortly before the Civil War, a racist attitude was legalized not only towards slaves, but also to the entire black population of the United States, as is clearly seen in the case of Dread Scott v. Sandford.

Dread Scott was a slave whose owner John Emerson took him from Missouri, the state where slavery was allowed, to Illinois, where slavery was prohibited. A few years later, Scott returned to Missouri with Emerson. Scott believed that since he lived in a free state, he should no longer be considered a slave.

Emerson died in 1843, and three years later, Scott sued Emerson's widow, demanding his freedom. In 1850, he won the case in one of the Missouri courts, but in 1852, the state supreme court overturned the lower court. Meanwhile, Ms. Emerson remarried, and Scott became the legal property of her brother John Sanford. Scott sued Sanford to regain his freedom. The case was investigated in one of the federal courts, which in 1854 ruled against Sanford.

When this case was referred to the Supreme Court, its members decided that Scott did not become free by virtue of his living in a free state and that, being a black man, he is not a citizen and, therefore, has no right to file a lawsuit with a court in force according to the norms of general and statutory law. This decision was widely criticized and contributed to the election of Abraham Lincoln as president.

The judgment in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case was declared unconstitutional by the thirteenth constitutional amendment, which abolished slavery in 1865, and the fourteenth amendment, which granted citizenship to former slaves in 1868.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How does the federal government pay for itself
Delicious77 [7]
The Federal Government receives finding from taxes coming out of salaries, which is called income tax. In the US especially, taxes contribute to the funding of Medicaid and social security benefits.
3 0
2 years ago
What beliefs set is shared by both Judaism and Christianity? A. old testament
AVprozaik [17]

Answer:

The answer is A. the old testament

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The first forts established by military to monitor the Indian tort territory and negotiate between the tribes were
denpristay [2]

Answer:

The Indian Removal Act was signed into law on May 28, 1830, by United States President Andrew Jackson. The law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Native American tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for white settlement of their ancestral lands.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Please!, Please!, give a honest opinion if i was to run For President in the future! what would make people love me and want to
Liula [17]

Answer:

You should never give your opinion on things you should only speak for what the people need to hear

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why was the Patriot Act controversial?
    6·2 answers
  • What is the significance of the eagle’s stance?
    7·2 answers
  • Which Western nation had colonized Sri Lanka? A. Dutch B. France C. United States D. Britain
    6·1 answer
  • WHOS GOOD AT CIVICS/HISTORY?! WHO CAN HELP ME?
    14·1 answer
  • In bed that night I invented a special drain that would be underneath every pillow in New York, and would connect to the reservo
    14·2 answers
  • One of the main reasons for the increase in greenhouse gases is
    5·1 answer
  • What happened as a result of frankfert assembely
    10·1 answer
  • Hello please read the passage and answer
    6·1 answer
  • Why was the principle of civic virtue important to the founding fathers?
    13·1 answer
  • Why is evaporation so important?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!