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
Harrizon [31]
3 years ago
15

Why was a convention convened at Annapolis in 1786? A. to discuss Shays’s Rebellion in Massachusetts B. to discuss the Spanish b

an on trade along the Mississippi C. to discuss interstate commerce D. to amend the Articles of Confederation E. to discuss a settlement plan for the Northwest
History
1 answer:
Kruka [31]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

c) to discuss interstate commerce

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Which country is known to help people with autism with their dolphin therapy or dolphin therapy?
Scorpion4ik [409]

Answer:

I think it is Egypt

Explanation:

i may not be so sure but i suggest Egypt

4 0
1 year ago
Pls help I’ll cash app u if u do it
bazaltina [42]
Consent of the governed
Documents
Tyranny
Czar Peter the Great
Revolution
Equality

Pretty sure that’s it :)
4 0
3 years ago
In the myth of the "Self-Made Man", what did business tycoons claim their success was simply the result of? What was the actual
True [87]

Answer:

The Self-Made Myth exposes the false claim that business success is the result of heroic individual effort with little or no outside help. Brian Miller and Mike Lapham bust the myth and present profiles of business leaders who recognize the public investments and supports that made their success possible—including Warren Buffett, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s, New Belgium Brewing CEO Kim Jordan, and others. The book also thoroughly demolishes the claims of supposedly self-made individuals such as Donald Trump and Ross Perot. How we view the creation of wealth and individual success is critical because it shapes our choices on taxes, regulation, public investments in schools and infrastructure, CEO pay, and more. It takes a village to raise a business—it’s time to recognize that fact.

This book challenges a central myth that underlies today’s antigovernment rhetoric: that an individual’s success is the result of gumption and hard work alone. Miller and Lapham clearly show that personal success is closely tied to the supports society provides.

Explanation:

it’s worth mentioning briefly an additional impact that the self-made myth has on our public debates—that of people voting their aspirations. Because the rags-to-riches myth persists, many Americans hold on to the belief, however unlikely, that they too may one day become wealthy. This has at times led to people’s voting their aspirations rather than their reality. As Michael Moore noted in 2003:

After fleecing the American public and destroying the American Dream for most working people, how is it that, instead of being drawn and quartered and hung at dawn at the city gates, the rich got a big wet kiss from Congress in the form of a record tax break, and no one says a word? How can that be? I think it’s because we’re still addicted to the Horatio Alger fantasy drug. Despite all the damage and all the evidence to the contrary, the average American still wants to hang on to this belief that maybe, just maybe, he or she (mostly he) just might make it big after all.35

It is essential that we find a more honest and complete narrative of wealth creation. In chapter 2, we expose the fallacy of the self-made myth by examining the stories of individuals often lifted up as successes in our public dialogues. In examining their stories, we come to better understand that even their business success includes contributions from society, from government, from other individuals, and even luck.

Beyond the moralizing ridiculed by Twain, this individual success myth overlooked a number of key social and environmental factors. The emergence of a clear geography of opportunity showed that there was something about the place where one lived that contributed to one’s success. No matter what personal qualities someone had, if you lived in Appalachia or the South, your chances of ascending the ladder to great wealth were slim. Those who achieved great wealth were almost invariably from the bustling industrial cities of the Northeast. By one estimate, three out of four millionaires in the nineteenth century were from New England, New York, or Pennsylvania.7

Another unique external factor was the opportunity that existed at that time, thanks to expanding frontiers and seemingly unlimited natural resources. The United States was conquering and expropriating land from native people and distributing it to railroads, White homesteaders, and land barons. Most of the major Gilded Age fortunes were tied to cornering a market and exploiting natural resources such as minerals, oil, and timber. Even P. T. Barnum, the celebrated purveyor of individual success aphorisms, had to admit in Art of Money Getting that “in the United States, where we have more land than people, it is not at all difficult for persons in good health to make money.”8

He might have added that it also helped to be male, to be free rather than a slave, and to be White. While free Blacks had some rights in the North, they had little opportunity to achieve the rags-to-riches dream because of both informal and legal discrimination. Even after the Civil War, Blacks, Asians, and others were largely excluded from governmental programs like the Homestead Act that distributed an astounding 10 percent of all US lands—270 million acres—to 1.6 million primarily White homesteaders.9

5 0
2 years ago
Why didn't France and the UK declare war on the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland?
kompoz [17]
"The reason why Britain didn’t declare war on the Soviet Union is an intriguing one. Unknown to the general public there was a ‘secret protocol’ to the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty that specifically limited the British obligation to protect Poland to ‘aggression’ from Germany" http://www.historyextra.com/qa/why-did-britain-and-france-not-declare-war-soviet-union-when-red-army...

8 0
3 years ago
An illustration shows a line of covered wagons traveling along a trail through the wilderness
Ksenya-84 [330]
<span>While many believed that Native Americans were truly their greatest threat, in reality, it was the simple and mundane things like disease and accidents that did the most damage to the travelers. The fact that they traveled so closely together (and without the help of proper modern medicine) it was easier to get sick and without the ability to heal, eventually die from simple diseases such as the common cold. Other ways pioneers could be injured is by buggy turnovers on the steeper areas of hills and mountains which had more of a rocky flooring.</span>
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which hominid was the first to migrate around the world
    6·2 answers
  • During the iranian revolution who escaped and came to america?
    7·2 answers
  • (MC)How did lawmakers use the Fourteenth Amendment to justify the passage of Jim Crow laws in the South?
    7·1 answer
  • Congress wanted to "keep the Union together despite slavery." What can you infer about this statement?
    7·1 answer
  • Identify the differences between the French and English settlers.
    7·1 answer
  • 2. What three factors led to revolution?
    7·2 answers
  • The name of a law or act that England levied against the colonies after the French and Indian War.
    7·1 answer
  • World's first school?​
    6·1 answer
  • What did the Greek historian Herodotus call Egypt?
    14·2 answers
  • How did technology change America during the Jacksonian period?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!