The argument has often been used to diminish the scale of slavery, reducing it to a crime committed by a few Southern planters, one that did not touch the rest of the United States. Slavery, the argument goes, was an inefficient system, and the labor of the enslaved was considered less productive than that of a free worker being paid a wage.
This sharp contrast between America’s lofty ideals, on the one hand, and the seemingly permanent second-class status of the Negroes, on the other, put the onus on the nation’s political elite to choose the nobility of their civic creed over the comfort of longstanding social arrangements. Ultimately they did so. Viewed from a historic and cross-national perspective, the legal and political transformation of American race relations since World War II represents a remarkable achievement, powerfully.
According to European colonial officials, the abundant land they had "discovered" in the Americas was useless without sufficient labor to exploit it. Slavery systems of labor exploitation were preferred, but neither European nor Native American sources proved adequate to the task.
Learn more about shaping America here:-brainly.com/question/19552107
#SPJ9
I think the answers are:
D and C?
hope this helps
They countered it because they ruined the land in every way possible which made it hard even for their allies from South Vietnam to support them. Napalm just burnt down forests and habituated areas and harmed a lot of civilians directly, while things such as agent orange destroyed the environment and poisoned the ground, the waters, the food, and basically anything else. It caused much more harm to the people than it did to help them.
During the Crusades, VeneTan ships carried Crusaders east and brought back riches from these countries.
This led to the development of many trading centers that operate in trading various type of commodities internationally, which led to economic Growth all across Europe.<span />
