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
tino4ka555 [31]
2 years ago
15

Why did Jefferson have little power over the judiciary

History
1 answer:
Yuri [45]2 years ago
8 0

As Jefferson was the third President and the Federal Court system was designed to have life-time appointments, many of the original holders of Federal judicial posts were held by Federalist appointees who had not yet died in office or resigned.

So, Jefferson found himself waiting for turnover on the bench without much success.

You might be interested in
What role did the roman catholic church during the middle ages?
yuradex [85]
During the Middle Ages, theRoman Catholic Church was organized into a hierarchy with the Pope at the top. ... Consequently, the church held some degree of power over monarchs in theMiddle Ages. For example,... During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church was organized into a hierarchy with the Pope at the top.
3 0
2 years ago
What is the final step for a bill to become a law?
Nadusha1986 [10]

Answer:

The Presidents Signature

Explanation:

Hope this helped! :)

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did entrepreneurs contribute to the Market Revolution of the 19th century? It needs to be 5 sentences and include detail, I
nika2105 [10]
They <span>invested their money into new industries.
By investing into new industries, those entrepreneurs provide various opportunities for skilled workers in related industry to flourish/
If the consumers are satisfied with the products from this new industries, the industry will eventually survive before it taken by a stronger industry in the future.</span>
5 0
2 years ago
Reasons for not going to war in 1861
attashe74 [19]
Real reasons for the Civil War:
This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.

Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.

Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.

Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.

It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.

Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began.
4 0
3 years ago
Which of these examples is reflective of civic involvement in political discourse?
saw5 [17]

Considering that contributing to a blog can be a form of civic discourse, public speeches might raise awareness of important issues and even calling in to Talk Radio programs is just one of the ways to make your voice to be heard, you can conclude that in the end, those are all ways of involvement in political discourse.

The correct answer is:

all of the above

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the Industrial Revolution in the American South,
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following is not considered a “victimless” crime against society?
    8·2 answers
  • What is social Darwinism
    8·2 answers
  • The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided for
    15·1 answer
  • During their exile in Babylon, the Jews continued their religion in
    14·1 answer
  • Who holds political power in a representative democracy ?
    11·1 answer
  • Most tariffs in the 19th century were intended to
    5·1 answer
  • What is a system of beliefs in a deity or a reality beyond human
    11·1 answer
  • According to Marx, capitalism would end when
    9·1 answer
  • Help please ASAP THANKSm
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!