Answer:
Frances Willard, Thomas Campbell, and Minnie Cunningham share one thing in common and that is the war for the rights of people. The Three people mention above share one particular thing in common and that is that the three are instrumental in founding groups that faught for the rights of people
Explanation:
Frances Willard was an American educator, temperance reformer, and women's suffragist. She later became the national president of Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1879.
Thomas Campbell was was a Presbyterian minister who became prominent during the Second Great Awakening of the United States of America. He and his son later found the
the "Disciples of Christ", which was later merge with a similar movement led by by Barton W. Stone. Both movement is now know as the American Restoration Movement
Minnie Cunningham was an American suffrage politician, who was the first executive secretary of the League of Women Voters. She was one of the founding members of the Woman's National Democratic Club.
The three people mention above share one particular thing in common and that is that the three are instrumental in founding groups that faught for the rights of people
Many people consider the Alabama state constitution to have had a shameful start because of the position it took when it came to racial issues.
The opening of the constitution stated that its objective was to establish "white supremacy" in the state, within the limits of the federal constitution. It also defended the removal of voting rights of African Americans and poor whites. Therefore, it attempted to benefit only a few people, those with the most power and privilege in society.
I agree that this is a shameful start. Even though much of the hateful and racist parts of the constitution have been removed, the establishment of such laws most likely left a negative impact on the society of the state. It also halted the state's progress by affecting the public school system and the social mobility of many people.
yes, America could still in fact get a large territory. They could get it by force (war), Buy the land, or a treaty. The bigger question however, is it worth doing it. If America wants to get the land by war that just adds to what the're doing in the middle east, and if it's a neighbor next to them (Canada or Mexico) the blood shead could be high because of pupulated cities. As for money or a treaty it wouln't be that much of a risk but it depends on how much money and the details of the treaty.
The correct answer is C) The Gulf of Tokin Resolution increased the president’s wartime powers, while the War Powers Resolution limited them.
<em>The difference between The Gulf of Tokin Resolution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is that the Gulf of Tokin Resolution increased the president’s wartime powers, while the War Powers Resolution limited them.
</em>
The Gulf of Tokin Resolution was enacted on August 10, 1964. It increased the power of the president. In this case, Lyndon B. Jhonson, to use the military force without the approval of the Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limited the power of president Richard Nixon to declare war. Congress needed to authorize the declaration of war.