Which of these was a consequence for farmers during the Dust Bowl?

2 answers:

7 0

The Dust Bowl was a period in the thirties when severe dust storms devastated all crops and other ecological components in several American and Canadian soils. This was partly caused by drought as well as the farmers' improper practices.

Because at least a year's worth of crops were gone, the bank cannot buy them and there would be no way for the value of their crops to increase either. Also, they would not be aiming to covet each other's land since most of the land eroded that period, too.

As a consequence for farmers, the government took their land. This was also done by the government in an effort to mitigate the damages done to the areas.

ANSWER: A.

Fofino [41]3 years ago

4 0

Answer:A

Explanation:

You might be interested in

Plz help school ends in 2 days and I need help

Ainat [17]

Answer:

Explanation:

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which options accurately describe how the US Supreme Court’s conclusion regarding Ingraham v. Wright compared with the decisions

fgiga [73]

Answer: It supported the District Court’s decision that the students’ constitutional rights had not been violated.

Explanation:

The case of Ingraham v. Wright was heard in 1976 in the Supreme court based on an event that happened in 1970 where James Ingraham was paddled by the principal of a public high school in Florida to the point of needing medical assistance.

The district court the case was first heard in dismissed it and the Court of Appeals upheld this dismissal.

The Supreme court then agreed with the District court in saying that corporal punishment did not infringe upon Constitutional rights so the students’ constitutional rights had not been violated.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What does the sentence "We turned to each other, our eyes looking from one friend to the next, and nodded as if we had shared a

valentina_108 [34]

Answer:

C. They made an agreement without saying a word.

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

You are the international manager of a U.S. business that has just developed a revolutionary new personal computer that can perf

finlep [7]

C) Because it saves on shipping costs, and if the European firm got mad we'd be screwed. Wholly owning the subsidiary allows complete control and if it fails we simply pull out. Our patents are protected and free from the potential of sabotage.

8 0

2 years ago

The mother cried, “Alas! My son is sick. change into indirect speech

Tasya [4]

I’m also stuck on this question

7 0

2 years ago