Answer:
Imagine that you and your friends went out for the night. You and 2 other friends decide to go destroy property and trespass on fields. The other friend didn’t do it, but does have it on video and did watch it happen. Well if interdependent wasn’t a thing, then your friends couldn’t depend on that friend to keep it a secret. Get it?
Answer:
The correct answer is the quilt and the jar of fruit.
Explanation:
"Trifles", is a play that was written by Susan Glaspell and it was acted for the first time in 1916. In essence, "Trifles" talks about the enormous differences between men and women, and particularly, the way that each sex sees the other and acts. It narrates the occurrences at the Wright household, where Mr. Wright has been found murdered and his wife is suspected of it. As the county attorney, the sheriff, Mr. Hale, and the wives of Hale and the sheriff, inspect the site, the male band and the female band separate and the first one finds no conclusive evidence on the case, while the women find all they need to know that their colleague, Mrs. Wright, was indeed the murderer. What they also find, are the symbols of what Mrs. Wright´s life turned out to be as a housewife, compared to when she was single, and the two most promiment symbols that show the incarceration of women and the pressure put on them by society as housewives are the quilt and jar of fruit, which represent the expectations that society had of women as housekeepers and homebuilders.
Answer:
true
Explanation:
scientists explain that living closer to the sea will benefit our health
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
