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
xxTIMURxx [149]
3 years ago
12

the "irrepressible conflict" according to William H. Seward and how does he specifically define the two sides involved

History
1 answer:
BlackZzzverrR [31]3 years ago
5 0

William H.Seward was a famous lawyer and politician. He was born in New York, USA. He served as the United States Secretary  of State between 1861 and 1869 and as Governor of New York between 1839 and 1842 .

In 1858 he delivered an important speech which was later known as "<em>the irrepressible conflict" </em>speech. During this oral presentation he adressed the slavery issue.

The so-called irrepressible confict was considered between the oposing forces and the enduring forces. This means the ones that support slavery and the ones that do not.  

On slavery, Seward believed that a decision should be made urgently. He was in total opposition to the slave system. He described this as unfair,not human at all. Furthermore, he pointed at the irony that it made no sense having <em>free states</em> but on the other hand having <em>slave states.</em>


You might be interested in
Compare and contrast the fall of the Roman Empire with the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Describe at least one major similarity
Lesechka [4]

The main difference between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire concerned the official religions they practiced. Whereas the Roman Empire was officially pagan up for most of its existence, the Byzantine Empire was Christian. The Byzantine Empire was the significant remnant of the Roman Empire that survived in southeastern Europe for a thousand years after the official fall of Rome in 476 CE. As noted, a key difference with Rome was that the Byzantine Empire was always Christian rather than pagan. This hardwired into Byzantium a lack of cultural openness to the kind of religious diversity that had helped classical Rome to expand and thrive.
Another important difference was the relative weakness of Byzantium vis-à-vis the Roman Republic's power in its heyday. While powerful in some ways, Byzantium did not function as a hegemonic cultural, political, and military superpower in the same way as did the classical Roman Empire. This had the downside of leaving western Europe vulnerable to attacks, particularly from Viking marauders, that would not have occurred under the Roman Empire, but this also created an upside in which the western Europeans were forced to create their own vibrant and flexible cultural, political, and military institutions and infrastructures in order to survive.
Byzantium remained crucially important, however, because it controlled Constantinople, the gateway to the Mediterranean as well the gateway to overland passages to Asia. This was a source of access to vital trade routes with the East that this remnant of the Roman empire safeguarded for western Europe. Unfortunately, however, unlike Rome in its heyday, Byzantium ultimately lacked military might to keep this territory from Muslim conquest.
7 0
3 years ago
Why would an imperial nation need a strong navy? (Im in 9th grade dont make the answer like a 11 or 12 grade answer thxs)
Yuri [45]

Answer:

A strong navy, used in concert with allied nations and backed up by a vigorous economy, is a potent deterrent to conflict and enables diplomacy. It convinces adversaries that war is either unwinnable or too costly to wage

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
He indian civil rights act of 1968 recognized the legitimacy of local reservation law and guaranteed reservation residents the p
antoniya [11.8K]

We can actually deduce here there that Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 recognized the legitimacy of local reservation law and guaranteed reservation residents the protections of the Bill of Rights.

<h3>What is The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968?</h3>

The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 is actually known to be the law that actually recognises the Native American groups as citizens. It is a federal law. The Act actually granted Native American people the full access to the United States Bill of Rights.

We see here that Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 actually guaranteed reservation residents the protections of the Bill of Rights.

Learn more about The Indian Civil Rights Act on brainly.com/question/7627008

#SPJ12

8 0
2 years ago
What are synonyms of rule of law
Gala2k [10]

Law, rule, regulation, precept, statute, ordinance

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which statement BEST describes life in the Soviet Union under totalitarian leader Joseph Stalin?
CaHeK987 [17]

Answer:

well I don't know what the statements you can choose are,but I'd say that life under joseph stalin was filled with fear and required you to be completely loyal and supportive of Stalin

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Who did the texans select to lead the volunteer army?
    5·1 answer
  • The Framers chose federalism in order to
    10·1 answer
  • Which of these amendments will MOST help someone who has been accused of a crime?
    9·1 answer
  • The English philosopher John Locke wrote that
    7·2 answers
  • How did the relationship between china and japan change during the late 19th century?
    5·2 answers
  • Which military conflict is most directly related to this passage?
    13·2 answers
  • Why do the foods we eat matter (ik its easy but idk how to start my essay)
    13·1 answer
  • What was the subject of the Louisiana laws upheld by ​Plessy v. Ferguson​?
    6·2 answers
  • The Hindu belief of ____, is the cycle of life and death. Your actions or_______ determined the fate of your next life.
    12·1 answer
  • Use the cartoon and your knowledge of US history to answer question 15.
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!