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
Bas_tet [7]
3 years ago
8

SOMEONE PLZZ HELP MEEE!!!!! Read the passage below. Then answer the question that follows using information and evidence from th

e text. That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom ... What is one question that this document leaves unanswered? Describe another document that might help you answer this question.
History
2 answers:
Sphinxa [80]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

This passage doesn't answer this question: what is the actual step/law enacted that will stop slavery?

Explanation:

Researching the rest of the Emancipation Proclamation will answer this question and show why this document is important in history.

ch4aika [34]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

Hey there!

The document does not answer the question of what the freed slaves are able to do once they are freed. Since this isn't the full proclamation, researching more of the proclamation will give the reader a better idea of what the slaves are able to do when they are freed.

Let me know if this helps :)

You might be interested in
The debate over slavery divided the United States into two sides. The (west,north,south) emerged as the center of antislavery ac
IrinaK [193]

Answer:

moral?

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
After WWI, the nation elected a Republican President. His name and <br> slogan were:
padilas [110]

Answer:

woodrow wilson "america first"

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Great Britain and France avoided a take over by fascist by
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Great Britain and France avoid a take over by fascists' by restricting freedom of speech.

Explanation:

Fascism is a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. , and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.  

How Britain and France avoided fascist revolution inside their own country during rise of fascism in Italy and Germany?

What made Mussolini’s Fascism, and Lenin’s Communism too, was a specific and unique situation, never to be repeated in later history: namely, the presence of enormous masses of disaffected veterans, with recent experience of war at a very high technical level of skill, and angry about the condition of their country. (And of enormous amounts of weapons.) Fascism was not made by speeches or by money, but by tens of thousands of men gathering in armed bands to beat up enemies. And that being the case, what happened to the similar masses of veterans who came home to France, Britain, and America too, after 1918?

Well, France was exhausted. She had fought with her full strength from day one, whereas Britain had taken time to deploy its whole strength, and America and Italy had only entered the war much later. For five years, every man who could be spared had been at the Front. Her losses were larger in proportion than those of any other great power. And on the positive side, France, like Britain and America, was prosperous. The veterans went home to a country that was comparatively able to receive them, give them a place to be, and not foster any dangerous mass disaffection. This is of course relatively speaking. There will have been anger enough, irritation enough, even some disaffection. But the only real case of violence from below due to disaffection was the riot in Paris that followed the Stavisky affair in early 1934, and that, compared to what took place daily in other countries, was a very bad play of a riot.

ON the other hand, both America and Britain experienced situations that had more than a taste of Fascism, but that failed to develop into freedom-destroying movements. In America, Fascism could have come from above. The last few years of the Wilson administration were horrendous: the Red Scare fanaticized large strata of the population, and the hatred came from the top, from Wilson and his terrible AG Palmer. (Palmer was a Quaker. So was Richard Nixon. Is there a reason why Quakers in politics should prove particularly dangerous?) Hate and fear of “reds” was also the driving force of Italian Fascism; and Wilson and Palmer mobilized it in ways and with goals that Mussolini would have understood. Had Wilson not suffered his famous collapse, he might have been a real danger: he intended to run for a third term in office. And the nationwide spread of the new KKK, well beyond the bounds of the old South, shows that he might have found a pool of willing stormtroopers. Altogether, I think America dodged a bullet the size of a Gatling shot when Wilson collapsed in office.

Britain’s own Blackshirt moment took place in Ireland. Sociologically, culturally, psychologically, the Blacks and Tans were the Blackshirts of Britain - masses of disaffected veterans sent into the streets to harass and terrify political enemies, bullies in non-standard uniforms with a loose relationship with the authorities. Only, their relationship with public opinion developed in an exactly opposite direction. Whereas Italy’s majority, horrified by Socialist violence at home and by Communist brutality abroad, tended increasingly to excuse the Blackshirts and wink at their violence, in Britain - possibly because of the influence of the American media, which were largely against British rule in Ireland - the paramilitary force found itself increasingly isolated from the country’s mainstream, and eventually their evil reputation became an asset to their own enemies and contributed to British acceptance of Irish independence.

Thanks,
Eddie

5 0
1 year ago
The following question refers to a hypothetical situation
Korolek [52]

Answer:

 

Answer

The court may decide to make Augustus Tritch liable for the millions of dollars that Frederick Von Wagner lost out on. Tritch may have to work towards repaying this debt. The court may also decide to pursue a new law that makes this activity illegal and stop further cases from taking place.

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was the territory of texas annexed by the united states?
Ivahew [28]

Answer:

His official motivation was to outmaneuver suspected diplomatic efforts by the British government for emancipation of slaves in Texas, which would undermine slavery in the United States. Through secret negotiations with the Houston administration, Tyler secured a treaty of annexation in April 1844.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Describe the conditions that the U.S. troops faced during the Spanish-American War, and how they affected the war’s outcome
    14·2 answers
  • After world war 1 how did the United States demonstrate its return to isolationism?
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following was a vast, regional difference within education, to deal with during the 1800s? The North had very few s
    8·1 answer
  • Under the Great Compromise, how would the number of representatives in the House of Representatives be determined?
    6·1 answer
  • What was the Molotov Plan?
    5·2 answers
  • 1 the first decades of the nineteenth century were a dynamic period for the young republic. what kinds of changes were occurring
    10·1 answer
  • Would that be rising inflation?
    6·1 answer
  • Which phrase best completes the diagram?
    8·1 answer
  • Identify the figurative language in the phrase below:
    15·1 answer
  • Teddy Roosevelt's foreign policy was known as the
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!