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
FromTheMoon [43]
3 years ago
12

Which of the following was not a contributing factor in Southern surrender _______________. a. massive casualties in the Souther

n ranks c. the capture of Jefferson Davis by the Union b. a change in the beliefs, lack of purpose, and lowered morale d. ruined Southern economy resulting from sustained periods of battle on fields and farms
History
1 answer:
-Dominant- [34]3 years ago
3 0

The answer to your question is " a change in the beliefs, lack of purpose, and lowered morale "

I really hope this helps you guys! Keep doing your work y'all <33

You might be interested in
What is the oldest woodwind instrument?
anastassius [24]

Answer:

Flute

Explanation:

The FLUTE is the oldest of all instruments that produce pitched sounds.

6 0
3 years ago
How did the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 affect enslavement?
zloy xaker [14]

Answer:

A slave who escaped the south and went to the north even after declared free can be claimed by their owner which affected the slaves very badly because if they ran away and settled in a north territory, that they can be claimed by their owner and be a slave even if they are free.

Explanation:

7 0
2 years ago
A pair of Renaissance writers who based works on their professional experiences were
Zinaida [17]

D) Niccolo Machiavelli and Baldassare Castiglione.


I just took the test.

Hope it helps


4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
HELP
torisob [31]

Answer:

At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

There is a lot of truth in this summary, but it is also simplistic. There is no doubt that Native Americans suffered enormously at the hands of white Americans, but federal Indian policy was shaped as much by paternalism, however misguided, as by white greed. Nor were Indians simply passive victims of white Americans’ actions. Their responses to federal policies, white Americans’ actions and the fundamental economic, social and political changes of the twentieth century were varied and divisive. These tensions and cross-currents are clearly evident in the history of the Indian New Deal and the policy of termination that replaced it in the late 1940s and 1950s. Native American history in the mid-twentieth century was much more than a simple story of good and evil, and it raises important questions (still unanswered today) about the status of Native Americans in modern US society.

Explanation:

Plz give me brainliest worked hard

8 0
3 years ago
How did charlemagne briefly reunite much of western europe, and what happened to his empire after his death?
lora16 [44]
Charlemagne belonged to the Germanic tribe, the Franks. Upon the death of his father, Pepin, and his brother, Carloman, Charlemagne began his campaign to unite all the Germanic peoples/ tribes into one kingdom. After uniting the Germanic tribes, he had them convert to Christianity.

Next, Charlemagne aimed to expand his kingdom, carrying out successful military campaigns against the Lombards (in modern-day Northern Italy), the Saxons, and the Avars (in modern-day Austria and Hungary). He conquered most of Western Europe reaching Northern Spain, Bavaria, and Southern Italy. 

Charlemagne employed "novel siege technologies and excellent logistics." He led a well-organized large army, heavily armed and armored, who traveled in horseback, allowing them to travel large distances. They relied on their maneuverability and on an organized system of conquest, building fortresses, leaving garrisons in forts, and gathering enough resources and supply for their conquests.

As an emperor, he was a talented diplomat and converted most of his kingdom to Christianity. He initiated military, economic, educational, and religious reforms, making him the protagonist of the "Carolingian Renaissance."

After Charlemagne's death, his son Louis became the sole ruler of his empire. Eventually, his empire was split among 3 of his grandsons and was dissolved by the late 800s, primarily because of a new wave of attacks from the Muslims, Vikings, and Magyars. <span>
</span>
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What was the name given tot he banning of alcoholic beverages
    10·2 answers
  • What did genghis khan unites the nomadic mongol tribes of the steppe
    13·1 answer
  • How did the allies win control of the atlantic ocean between 1941 and 1943
    12·1 answer
  • What is the number one country for terrorist attacks?
    10·1 answer
  • What is public policy? Why do we want public policy?
    13·1 answer
  • Leading up the Civil War, the South had an economy based on agriculture and slave labor while the North had an economy based on
    14·2 answers
  • Which description best illustrates an interest group's use of public pressure to indirectly influence policy? A. Filing a lawsui
    9·2 answers
  • For what reason did Gouverneur Morris change the opening of the Constitution’s preamble?
    8·1 answer
  • Will give brainliest! What letter on the southeast map pictured is Singapore?
    5·1 answer
  • Legislative salaries are determined by:
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!