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
tiny-mole [99]
3 years ago
8

Can the government take private property from an individual?

History
1 answer:
Sergeeva-Olga [200]3 years ago
3 0
The Taking of Property for Public Use. Eminent domain is the power of government to take private land for public use. This power is limited by the federal Constitution and by state constitutions -- when the government does take private property for public use, it must fairly compensate the owner for the deprivation. So no they can unless they have the owners permission :)
You might be interested in
What are our rights and responsibilities in creating a just society? helpp
navik [9.2K]

Explanation:

this answers will help u

u r a good person means mark me as brainleist

7 0
3 years ago
In the course of the Civil War, the ruling classes of England and France strongly opposed the Confederacy. the English governmen
alina1380 [7]

Answer:

popular support for the Union was strong in England.

Explanation:

Britain took a neutral stand during the civil war in the United States of America. Although a small British private interest supported Confederacy by supplying ammunition in exchange for cotton. But overall conditions signifies that Britain actually supported the Union efforts. The trade with Confederate states was declined by 90 percent. The hopes of British intervention by the Confederate remained a mere hope as Britain never recognized it as a nation nor it signed any treaty with it. Moreover, the British interest of trade was better supported by Unionism than by dividing it and the stakes for intervention were high.

4 0
3 years ago
What was the impact and/or relationship between Jim Crow laws / Jim Crow Era and the
lina2011 [118]

Answer:

In September 1895, Booker T. Washington, the head of the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama, stepped to the podium at the Atlanta Cotton States Exposition and implored white employers to “cast down your bucket where you are” and hire African Americans who had proven their loyalty even throughout the South’s darkest hours. In return, Washington declared, southerners would be able to enjoy the fruits of a docile work force that would not agitate for full civil rights. Instead, blacks would be “In all things that are purely social . . . as separate as the fingers.”

Washington called for an accommodation to southern practices of racial segregation in the hope that blacks would be allowed a measure of economic freedom and then, eventually, social and political equality. For other prominent blacks, like W. E. B. Du Bois who had just received his PhD from Harvard, this was an unacceptable strategy since the only way they felt that blacks would be able to improve their social standing would be to assimilate and demand full citizenship rights immediately.

Regardless of which strategy one selected, it was clear that the stakes were extremely high. In the thirty years since the Civil War ended African Americans had experienced startling changes to their life opportunities. Emancipation was celebrated, of course, but that was followed by an intense debate about the terms of black freedom: who could buy or sell property, get married, own firearms, vote, set the terms of employment, receive an education, travel freely, etc. Just as quickly as real opportunities seemed to appear with the arrival of Reconstruction, when black men secured unprecedented political rights in the South, they were gone when northern armies left in 1877 and the era of Redemption began. These were the years when white Southerners returned to political and economic power, vowing to “redeem” themselves and the South they felt had been lost. Part of the logic of Redemption revolved around controlling black bodies and black social, economic, and political opportunities. Much of this control took the form of so-called Jim Crow laws—a wide-ranging set of local and state statutes that, collectively, declared that the races must be segregated.

In 1896, the year after Washington’s Atlanta Cotton Exposition speech, the Supreme Court declared in Plessy v. Ferguson that racial segregation was constitutional. It would take fifty-eight years for that decision to be reversed (in Brown v. Board of Education). In the meantime, African Americans had to negotiate the terms of their existence through political agitation, group organizing, cultural celebration, and small acts of resistance. Much of this negotiation can be seen in the history of the Great Migration, that period when blacks began to move, generally speaking, from the rural South to the urban North. In the process, African Americans changed the terms upon which they exercised their claims to citizenship and rights as citizens.

There are at least two factual aspects of the Great Migration that are important to know from the start: 1) the black migration generally occurred between 1905 and 1930 although it has no concrete beginning or end and 2) from the standpoint of sheer numbers, the Great Migration was dwarfed by a second migration in the 1940s and early 1950s, when blacks became a majority urban population for the first time in history. Despite these caveats, the Great Migration remains important in part because it marked a fundamental shift in African American consciousness. As such, the Great Migration needs to be understood as a deeply political act.

Migration was political in that it often reflected African American refusal to abide by southern social practices any longer. Opportunities for southern blacks to vote or hold office essentially disappeared with the rise of Redemption, job instability only increased in the early twentieth century, the quality of housing and education remained poor at best, and there remained the ever-looming threat of lynch law if a black person failed to abide by local social conventions. Lacking even the most basic ability to protect their own or their children’s bodies, blacks simply left.

3 0
3 years ago
Why did southern plantation owners support slavery?
mezya [45]

Answer:

Southern slaveholders often used biblical passages to justify slavery. ... Defenders of slavery argued that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. The cotton economy would collapse.

Explanation:

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Please help me I need this ASAP PLEASE
Nezavi [6.7K]
I think the answer is c
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What empire was located in North America?
    5·1 answer
  • Why did James Madison invite the thirteen states to a meeting in the fall of 1786?
    11·2 answers
  • An example of a pull factor would be<br> oppression.<br> famine.<br> Ο Ο Ο Ο<br> war.<br> O safety.
    15·1 answer
  • How did the French Revolution lead to the Haitian Revolution?
    11·1 answer
  • Use the physical map of the United States on pages 68 and 69 of Understanding Geography to answer the question. Which river flow
    15·2 answers
  • How many state courts does Florida have?
    12·1 answer
  • What did the Mongols control that no other empire has done before or since?
    7·1 answer
  • Do you believe that all individuals have the same ability to reach their dreams?
    8·2 answers
  • 26. The House of Representatives uses population to determine representation. Would the North
    6·1 answer
  • Who was Hugo Chavez? Describe his rise to power.
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!