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
Rashid [163]
3 years ago
5

In the Scott v. Stanford case the Supreme Court

History
1 answer:
MakcuM [25]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Explanation:Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them. The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

You might be interested in
PLEASE HELP !!!!!!!!!​
stiks02 [169]

Answer:

it's blurry. you can't read the boxes

7 0
3 years ago
The conflict over the disputed territory between Texas and Mexico was because Texas claimed all the land up to the Nueces River
Mademuasel [1]

Answer:

True

Explanation:

Texas and mexico had a conflict because they couldn't decide who get to claim the Rio grande because the texas government wanted to claim it and mexico also wanted to so it became a dispute

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How can two different historians come up with different versions of the past
Kryger [21]
Depends on the perspective they find the information and the how they find it .
5 0
3 years ago
In what way did the Romans adopt and adapt the culture of the Greeks?
antoniya [11.8K]

The way that the Romans adopt and adapt the culture of the Greeks is by choosing the Greek gods but gave them new names.

<h3>What is a culture adoption?</h3>

It relates to a society trying to adopt another society culture's values and taking them into their own. Apart from the fact that literature, drama and music from the Greeks were instrumental in influencing Roman architecture and art, the Romans also relied heavily upon Greek models and constructed buildings and houses that implemented Greek styles such as colonnades and rectangular based designs.

In this context, a way that the Romans adopt and adapt the culture of the Greeks is by choosing the Greek gods but gave them new names. Therefore, the Option A is correct.

Read more about culture

brainly.com/question/25010777

#SPJ1

5 0
1 year ago
1. What was the plight of the farmers?
Anni [7]
At the end of the 19th century, about a third of Americans worked in agriculture, compared to only about four percent today. After the Civil War, drought, plagues of grasshoppers, boll weevils, rising costs, falling prices, and high interest rates made it increasingly difficult to make a living as a farmer. In the South, one third of all landholdings were operated by tenants. Approximately 75 percent of African American farmers and 25 percent of white farmers tilled land owned by someone else.
Every year, the prices farmers received for their crops seemed to fall. Corn fell from 41 cents a bushel in 1874 to 30 cents by 1897. Farmers made less money planting 24 million acres of cotton in 1894 than they did planting 9 million acres in 1873. Facing high interests rates of upwards of 10 percent a year, many farmers found it impossible to pay off their debts. Farmers who could afford to mechanize their operations and purchase additional land could successfully compete, but smaller, more poorly financed farmers, working on small plots marginal land, struggled to survive.

Many farmers blamed railroad owners, grain elevator operators, land monopolists, commodity futures dealers, mortgage companies, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers of farm equipment for their plight. Many attributed their problems to discriminatory railroad rates, monopoly prices charged for farm machinery and fertilizer, an oppressively high tariff, an unfair tax structure, an inflexible banking system, political corruption, corporations that bought up huge tracks of land. They considered themselves to be subservient to the industrial Northeast, where three-quarters of the nation's industry was located. They criticized a deflationary monetary policy based on the gold standard that benefited bankers and other creditors.

All of these problems were compounded by the fact that increasing productivity in agriculture led to price declines. In the 1870s, 190 million new acres were put under cultivation. By 1880, settlement was moving into the semi-arid plains. At the same time, transportation improvements meant that American farmers faced competitors from Egypt to Australia in the struggle for markets.

The first major rural protest was the Patrons of Husbandry, which was founded in 1867 and had 1.5 million members by 1875. Known as the Granger Movement, these embattled farmers formed buying and selling cooperatives and demanded state regulation of railroad rates and grain elevator fees.

Early in the 1870s the Greenback Party agitated for the issue of paper money, not backed by gold or silver, with the idea that a depreciating currency would make it easier for debtors to meet their obligations.

Another wave of protest grew out of the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union (the Southern Farmers Alliance) formed in Lampedusa County, Texas in 1875, and the Northwestern Farmers' Alliance, founded in Chicago in 1880. By the late 1880s, the cooperative business enterprises set up by the Farmers' Alliances had begun to fail due to inadequate capitalization and mismanagement. By 1890, the Farmers Alliances had begun to enter politics. In 1892 the Alliance formed the Peoples' or Populist Party. Among other things, the Populists financed commodity credit system that would have allowed farmers to store their crop in a federal warehouse to await favorable market prices and meanwhile borrow up to 80 percent of the current market price.
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • When historians talk about the future, they are referring to events that
    8·2 answers
  • Who was the important jazz solist that played both soprano saxophonist and clarinet?
    5·1 answer
  • Can I please have help on this? Thank you so much
    9·1 answer
  • How might mercantilism have encouraged colonial expansion abroad?
    8·1 answer
  • A major reason why western European countries joined NATO after world War 2
    5·1 answer
  • Which transportation development had the greatest long-term impact on the American economy?
    5·1 answer
  • Which two distinct shipbuilding traditions produced the 15th Century European vessels of exploration?
    8·2 answers
  • What was one similarity and one difference between Santa Anna and Sam Houston?
    10·1 answer
  • What played a great role in the kansan nebraska act
    6·1 answer
  • Which empire came first roman or byzantine?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!