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
sergiy2304 [10]
3 years ago
13

Johnson's political views were nearest those of _____. a Tory a Whig an anarchist a socialist

History
2 answers:
kari74 [83]3 years ago
7 0

The correct answer is A) a Tory.

Johnson's political views were nearest those of a Tory.

When we talk about politics in the United States different terms had served to identify the political ideology of many different politicians that had served office in different moments of time. In this case, a Tory is a person or a politician that could be classified as a conservative to traditionalist for the way it thinks and behaves. It was coined in Britain and expressed some kind of support to the crown. In America, During the American Revolutionary War, the term Tory was associated with a Loyalist, the people that preferred to remain loyal to the British monarchy.

Leya [2.2K]3 years ago
4 0

A TORY is the correct answer!

You might be interested in
When the abbasid caliphs tried to secure their position by creating an army of turkish warriors, what was the ultimate result?
Elena L [17]
The creation of the an army of Turkish warriors to help the Abbasid Caliphs secure their position ultimately led to the conversion of the Turks to Islam, and eventually giving them control over Sunni Islam.

The Abbasid Caliphs were leaders of the "Abbasid Dynasty," which is 2nd of the two great Sunni (Islam) dynasties. Meanwhile, the Seljuk Turks were nomadic people who converted to Islam. Because they were often used as military mercenaries by the Abbasid Caliphate, their power grew, eventually weakening the power of the caliphs, and giving them "control over" Sunni Islam. They revitalized Islamic laws, reorganized the institutions, and provided political stability to the empire. 
6 0
3 years ago
What might have happened if the National Government could only legislate based on what is specifically in the Constitution?
EastWind [94]
The amount of territory the US currently has would have been completely different if the national government could only legislate based on what is written in the constitution.

A perfect example of this is the power to purchase land/territories from other countries. This was first done by Thomas Jefferson with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. The US Constitution does not say that the president has the power to buy land from other countries. However, Jefferson said that this power was "implied" by the Constitution.

This idea of an implied power greatly changed the presidency/national government. Several presidents after Jefferson would follow his lead by making deals with countries for territory.

If it wasn't for this concept of implied powers, the US may not have grown to the 50 states we know it as today.
8 0
3 years ago
Based on what you have learned in this lesson, write two to three sentences describing one success and one failure of Clinton’s
cupoosta [38]

When the Genocide Convention was passed by the United Nations in 1948, the world said, “Never again.”

But the history of the twentieth century instead proved that “never again” became “again and again.”  The promise the United Nations made was broken, as again and again, genocides and other forms of mass murder killed 170 million people, more than all the international wars of the twentieth century combined.

Why?  Why are there still genocides?  Why are there genocidal massacres going on right now in southern Sudan by the Sudanese government against Dinka, Nuer, and Nuba; in eastern Burma by the Burmese government against the Karen; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by both government and rebel forces against Tutsis, Banyamulenge, Hutus, Hema, and Lendu?  Why has ethnic and religious hatred again reached the boiling point in Israel and Palestine; Côte d’Ivoire, and Burundi?                                                     

There are two reasons why genocide is still committed in the world:

1.        The world has not developed the international institutions needed to predict and prevent it.

2.        The world’s leaders do not have the political will to stop it.

In order to prevent genocide, we must first understand it.  We must study and compare genocides and develop a working theory about the genocidal process.  There are many Centers for the Study of Genocide that are doing that vital work – in Australia, Brussels, Copenhagen, Jerusalem, Montreal, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Haven, Nottingham, and elsewhere.

But studying genocide is not enough.  Our next task should be to create the international institutions and political will to prevent it.  Four institutions are needed: centers for early warning, programs for conflict transformation, standing forces for rapid intervention, and international courts for effective punishment.

1.  The U.N. Security Council and key governments need strong, independent Early Warning systems to predict where and when ethnic conflict and genocide are going to occur, and to present policy options on prevention and intervention.  The Brahimi report made by the special commission on U.N. Peace-keeping makes just such a recommendation, and it should be implemented.  Selected country desk officers and top officials of the U.N. system now hold monthly “Framework for Coordination” to discuss current crises, but inadequate staffing prevents long-range strategic planning.  There is not a single person at the United Nations whose responsible for genocide early warning and prevention.  Who do you call? Ghostbusters.

:P

<span>
</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did roman leaders treat christians harshy?
9966 [12]
<span>Rome allowed worship of many god, but they also demanded that their Emperor be worshiped as a god and the Christians refused. They would only bow to Jesus.</span>
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What country was the last to settle in North America?
son4ous [18]

Answer:England

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What are the implications of King William and Queen Mary signing the English Bill of Rights?
    8·1 answer
  • What economic activities flourished in the Middle colonies?
    15·1 answer
  • What crops were grown in the americas that were labor intensive and helped lead to the slave trade
    12·1 answer
  • The passage of the dawes act in 1887 was primarily an attempt by the united states government to
    13·1 answer
  • The Alps along with the Apennines had which of these effects on the development of Rome?
    11·2 answers
  • What is the connection between dharma and jati?
    10·2 answers
  • Which amendment forbids illegal search and seizure?
    14·2 answers
  • What was the description of the Brooklyn neighborho<br> that the appraiser wrote in 1930?
    9·1 answer
  • Choose all of the items that deal with the Watergate scandal.
    14·1 answer
  • According to the slave codes, as a white slave owner you could not be charged with a felony if you killed one of your slaves in
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!