Answer: B.
Explanation:
A primary source is documentation written by someone that experienced the event in real time, usually. In this case, having a letter from a participant or photographs gives the examiner a first person perspective. II and III are both sources that are not written by people involved in the revolution and/or span over time.
Violations against English constitutional law
Cutting off colonial trade with other countries
Depriving colonists of a fair trial by a jury of their peers
Transporting colonists to England for trial with biased juries
Altering the structure of colonial government
Sending the British Army to the Colonies to bring about destruction
In a nutshell, Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Patriots believed that the King had exceeded his constitutional authority, and that under ''Natural Law'' the Colonies had the right to form a new government.
Answer:
The answer is c. during the Golden Age of India
Explanation:
Here's the explanation: The Gupta Empire was an ancient Indian empire existing from the mid-to-late 3rd century CE to 543 CE. At its zenith, from approximately 319 to 543 CE, it covered much of the Indian subcontinent.[3] This period is considered as the Golden Age of India by some historians.[
Answer:
Explanation:
PRO : (1) Current federal contribution limits have not been adjusted for inflation in more than 20 years. The maximum individual contribution -- set at $1,000 in 1974 -- is worth approximately $300 in 1996 dollars. Candidates need to raise more than 3 times what they did 22 years ago to achieve the same result.
CON : (1) Only a small percentage of citizens can afford to give $1,000 or more to a candidates. Increasing the contribution limit or abolishing it altogethermight magnify the influence that wealthy individuals and groups have over elected officials.
PRO : (2) Studies show that PACs and related organizations prefer to give money to incumbent candidates, not challengers. Raising contribution limits might help challengers raise enough money to get their campaigns off the ground.
CON : (2) Because PACs and wealthy individual contributors favor incumbents, there is no reason to believe that challengers will have an easier time raising money from those same sources if limits are lifted.
PRO : (3) Candidates would spend less time fundraising, and more time meeting citizens and tending to their official duties.
CON : (3) Campaign finance problems would not be resolved by adding more money to the current system or doing nothing at all. We are much more likely to succeed if we build on what works in our current system.
PRO : (4) Given the escalating cost of political communications, especially the cost of TV advertising, candidates need more money than ever to communicate effectively with voters.
CON : (4) People who are wealthy enough to spend lots of money on political activities that are not limited by current campaign finance laws (like soft money, independent expenditures) will continue to do so, making higher limits as easy to evade legally as current limits.
One of the goals <span>was to end the adverse effects of the crop-lien system on </span>farmers<span> in the period following the American Civil War.</span>