Answer:The telegraph was invented by Samuel Morse in 1844, and telegraph wires soon sprang up all along the East Coast. During the war, 15,000 miles of telegraph cable was laid purely for military purposes. Mobile telegraph wagons reported and received communications from just behind the frontline. President Lincoln would regularly visit the Telegraph Office to get the latest news. The telegraph also enabled news sources to report on the war in a timely fashion, leading to an entirely new headache for the government: how to handle the media.
The way in which state governments restricted the vote of African Americans after the American Revolution was through the imposition of discriminatory clauses such as poll taxes, by means of which it was impossible to grant people with fewer resources; literacy tests, by means of which only people with a certain level of education (who were generally only white) could vote; and the demands that the ancestors of the voter be free, which meant that the vast majority of African Americans could not meet this requirement.
These requirements were clearly unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional, since they violated the freedoms of these people and their right to equality, which in turn are part of the very essence of the United States as a nation.
Learn more in brainly.com/question/8192893
Answer:
Options: Speaker A: The time of unlimited immigration is now past; controls are necessary to preserve the customs and values that have made this nation great.
Speaker B: In order to protect our citizens' jobs, restrictions must be placed on the number of immigrants.
Explanation:
In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prevented all Chinese immigration in America. The Chinese Exclusion Act was a law forced during the Presidency of Chester A. Arthur. The Act banned all Chinese immigration for ten years and prohibited Chinese resident to be citizens in America.
Speaker A and B support the Chinese Exclusion Act as they state it necessary for America to save its culture and customs especially, immigrants from China. To protect jobs is another explanation for the support of this law that put restrictions on Chinese immigrants.
They moved to the city so they would have an easier time finding work
Answer:s the United States enters the 21st century, it stands unchallenged as the world’s economic leader, a remarkable turnaround from the 1980s when many Americans had doubts about U.S. “competitiveness.” Productivity growth—the engine of improvement in average living standards—has rebounded from a 25-year slump of a little more than 1 percent a year to roughly 2.5 percent since 1995, a gain few had predicted.
Economic engagement with the rest of the world has played a key part in the U.S. economic revival. Our relatively open borders, which permit most foreign goods to come in with a zero or low tariff, have helped keep inflation in check, allowing the Federal Reserve to let the good times roll without hiking up interest rates as quickly as it might otherwise have done. Indeed, the influx of funds from abroad during the Asian financial crisis kept interest rates low and thereby encouraged a continued boom in investment and consumption, which more than offset any decline in American exports to Asia. Even so, during the 1990s, exports accounted for almost a quarter of the growth of output (though just 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product at the end of the decade).
Yet as the new century dawns, America’s increasing economic interdependence with the rest of the world, known loosely as “globalization,” has come under attack. Much of the criticism is aimed at two international institutions that the United States helped create and lead: the International Monetary Fund, launched after World War II to provide emergency loans to countries with temporary balance-of-payments problems, and the World Trade Organization, created in 1995 during the last round of world trade negotiations, primarily to help settle trade disputes among countries.
The attacks on both institutions are varied and often inconsistent. But they clearly have taken their toll. For all practical purposes, the IMF is not likely to have its resources augmented any time soon by Congress (and thus by other national governments). Meanwhile, the failure of the WTO meetings in Seattle last December to produce even a roadmap for future trade negotiations—coupled with the protests that soiled the proceedings—has thrown a wrench into plans to reduce remaining barriers to world trade and investment.
For better or worse, it is now up to the United States, as it has been since World War II, to help shape the future of both organizations and arguably the course of the global economy. A broad consensus appears to exist here and elsewhere that governments should strive to improve the stability of the world economy and to advance living standards. But the consensus breaks down over how to do so. As the United States prepares to pick a new president and a new Congress, citizens and policymakers should be asking how best to promote stability and growth in the years ahead.
Unilateralism
