Answer:
Republican Party
Explanation:
The republican party formed by Jefferson spilt into two groups by the 1820s, they were the national republican party that later changed their name to the Whig party and they competed for the white house with the democrats in 1840s and 1850s.
Two party system came into place and the two dominant party tried to avoid discussions around slavery. When the Whig coalition fell apart, the northern members of the group went to join the new Republican Party, and they went around opposing the extension of slavery into new territories at that time. Their campaign themes and set-up led to the election to Abraham Lincoln, who was the first U.S president to emerge from their party in 1860.
Answer: 3
Explanation: I’m sorry I don’t know 2 but 3 is Peasants 90% of people worked as them.
if you want to donate, its ok to list yourself as a donor on your drivers licens ... but if you die after being cancer-free for a long time , your organs may be used . other tissues , such as skin , tendons , and bone can often be used
The reason Islam was readily accepted in captured territories was because <u>B. </u><u>Christians </u><u>and </u><u>Jews </u><u>already had</u><u> similar beliefs. </u>
<h3>Spread of Islam </h3>
- After the death of Muhammed, Muslims spread out from Arabia and conquered much of North Africa and Southern Europe.
- This allowed them to convert many to their cause.
The areas that were captured were mostly under Christian dominance which made assimilation to Islam easier as both Christians and Muslims share similar belief such as monotheism and being descended from Abraham.
In conclusion, option B is correct.
Find out more on the similarities between Islam and Christianity at brainly.com/question/4319165.
Answer: by using local property taxes to fund public schools, trapping poor children in poor schools
Explanation: Jonathan Kozol is an American writer, educator, and activist best known for his publications on public education in the United States. In savage inequalities, Kozol pointed out how students from poor family background are trapped in poorly funded schools since public school funding comes from local property taxes which vary widely between communities.
The basis of Kozol's argument is the comparisons between rich and poor school districts, in particular the amount of money spent per child. School districts with relatively wealthy property-owners are spending over $20,000 per year per child while school districts where poor people live spend about $11,000 per year per child.
The pertinent question he asks is whether it is fair or right that the place of one's birth or residence should determine the quality of education a child is entitled to.
