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
photoshop1234 [79]
3 years ago
5

Which of the following best describes the forced labor practices used by

History
2 answers:
kari74 [83]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

C

Explanation:

This is the only answer that actually makes sense and fits for the question..

vlada-n [284]3 years ago
4 0

Answer: Spanish leaders were granted...

Explanation:

You might be interested in
Write two paragraphs describing the different points of view in the following scenarios:
solmaris [256]

Answer:No secession ball will mark the day. Nor, it appears, are any other commemorative events planned by Texas, which would rather boast of its time as an independent country. But 150 years ago today, shortly after 11 a.m. on Feb. 1, 1861, a state convention voted overwhelmingly to secede from the Union.

In Austin, on the second floor of the old Texas statehouse just south of the current Capitol building (near the present-day Alamo and Texas Rangers monuments), cheering delegates to the special convention approved a short document declaring that the federal government was becoming "a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding States." Texas, they stated, was henceforth a "separate Sovereign state ... absolved from all allegiance to the United States." (An even more explicit "declaration of causes" followed a day later; it's well worth a read.)

For one aging veteran in the hall, this was the blackest of days. Sam Houston, the 67-year-old governor of Texas (who had twice served as president of the Republic of Texas), had for years almost single-handedly kept secessionist sentiment in the state at bay, despite being a slaveholder himself. Nearly three decades earlier, Houston had fought for Texan independence from Mexico and guided the fledgling Republic into the Union. He did not want to lose his life's work. "Mark me, the day that produces a dissolution of this [Union] will be written in the blood of humanity," Houston, then a U.S. senator, told Congress in 1854 as he defied Southern predilections to vote against the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Of himself, he had said: "I wish no prouder epitaph to mark the board or slab that may lie on my tomb than this: 'He loved his country, he was a patriot; he was devoted to the Union.'"

As secessionist fever swept Texas, Houston was denounced as a "traitor-knave" for his Unionist views. Always, though, when the grand old man — who still hobbled from a wound sustained at San Jacinto in 1836 — took the stage, he had been able to quell his rivals. But as the year 1860 drew to a close, with Abraham Lincoln's election causing South Carolina to secede and other states to teeter on the brink, Houston, despite being governor, could no longer hold back the tide.

He tried. When secessionists began clamoring for a special legislative session in anticipation of secession, Houston stalled. Soon, however, a secession convention at the end of January 1861 appeared inevitable. Houston convened a special session of the Legislature just before the convention, hoping that he could somehow persuade lawmakers to rein in the proceedings.

It was not to be. The delegates — chosen in a hastily organized election in early January — convened in Austin on Jan. 28, 1861, and quickly penned a document that would sever Texas' ties to the federal government. Houston was invited to the roll call on Feb. 1. He sat "grim and motionless," writes his biographer M.K. Wisehart. One man called him a traitor to his face, though Houston's allies swiftly demanded (and received) an apology. The delegates approved the secession ordinance, 166-8.

The governor won a few concessions, however. He had said he would swallow secession if the people ratified it — so it was put to a vote on Feb. 23, 1861, and the people affirmed it, 44,317 to 13,020. Houston tried to argue that Texas voters had merely approved secession, rather than latching onto the Confederacy. This was technically true, but the governor, who preferred that Texas should return to its old status as an independent country, had lost his sway. In March, Texas became the last state to join the Confederacy in the "first wave," before hostilities broke out at Fort Sumter.

A defiant Houston would swear no oath to the Confederacy, and he was finished as governor. "Fellow citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath," he declared on March 16, 1861. "In the name of the nationality of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. …" Nor would he live to see the end of the war he tried so hard to avert; he died in 1863, a year after the Battle of Shiloh, in which his son, Sam Jr., a Confederate soldier, was wounded and held prisoner for months. Texas, in fact, would become the site of the last battle of the Civil War, in May 1865. It was also the last rebel state readmitted to the Union, on March 30, 1870, subject to several conditions.

There is another peculiar post-script to the secessionist drama of 1861.

Oddly enough, one Robert E. Lee was living in Texas at that time. Lee had been stationed in Texas on and off for several years, commanding the Second United States Cavalry in frontier skirmishes against Comanches and Mexicans. He didn't seem too fond of the frontier life; he wrote to his wife of living of a "desert of dullness."

8 0
3 years ago
Why were African tribes, colonies, and countries easy to conquer?
Mamont248 [21]
These were easily conquered do to A. Them not having the fire power B. They were separate and were over whelmed
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The cabinet includes one member who is not the head of a department. What is that person’s title? Who is that person right now?
Gelneren [198K]
The president 
hjhnkjhjhnjknkjnknknk
5 0
3 years ago
How was roman republic governed ?
tatuchka [14]

Answer:

Explanation:

The Roman Republic lasted from 509 BC to 27 BC. It started after the period of the Roman Kings and ended with the start of the Roman Empire. Here, Cameron Sweeney explains how government operated in the Roman Republic. It considers the Senate, the Assembly, the Quaestors, Aediles, and Praetors, the Consuls, and the Censors.

a 19th-century depiction of the Roman Senate by Cesare Maccari. The painting is called Cicero attacks Catiline .

a 19th-century depiction of the Roman Senate by Cesare Maccari. The painting is called Cicero attacks Catiline.

Rome. Surely the best-known empire in the history of mankind. Rome has left behind it a legacy of art, philosophy, literature, and architecture (and a horse Consul, but we will ignore that). People know of the writings of Seneca, or of the story of Aeneid, or even about the aqueducts and Coliseum. Whether it be when Caligula declared war on Neptune or the stories of Julius Caesar, people typically know quite a bit about Rome. But what many people don't know about is their government. The Romans have left a mold in which western civilizations have used in the formation of their government.

Social Divisions During the Republic

Up until Julius Caesar took hold of Rome in 49 BC, Rome was not ruled by an all-powerful individual, but by two elected Consuls. At that time, Rome was considered a Republic, and Rome was the closest it would ever be to a democracy.

The citizens of the Republic were broken up into three main social classes; the Patricians, Plebeians, and Slaves.

The patricians were usually the wealthiest and elite families of Rome. I emphasize families because Rome was a society where even the wealthiest plebeians weren't considered patricians, due to their “gens” or name. Patricians lived in grand villas and had slaves do their work for them. Due to their elite social class, they were allowed to vote and participate in government.

The plebeians were the lower class of Rome. Typically without wealth or slaves, the plebeian class usually had to work for a living (an utterly repulsiveidea, I know). It was not uncommon, however, for a wealthy plebeian to buy their way into the patrician class, if a certain patrician family was in dire need of funds. Regardless of this, Plebeians were still citizens of Rome and thus were also allowed to vote and participate in government.

The slave class of Rome, on the other hand, had no money, no land, and no freedoms. Although slaves, they had some rights and often would occupy important positions such as accountants or physicians. Nonetheless, they were not considered citizens of Rome and were not allowed the right to vote or participate in government.

The Senate

Throughout the history of Rome, the Senate played an important part in Roman politics and government. The Senate consisted of men aged 30 or older, and senators held their office for their entire life!  Senators would advise the Consuls, and even the Emperor later in Roman history, and would often discuss and vote on legislation.

What makes the Senate interesting is that it had no legislative power. That's right, the Senate had no power to create or destroy laws. This didn't make it powerless, as the Senate still held a significant influence over government and acted as a prime advisory body to the Consuls in the time of the Republic.

During the time of the Emperor the Senate naturally lost significant power. Even so, the Senate discussed domestic and foreign policy and supervised relations with foreign powers and governments. The Senate would direct the religious life of Rome and, most importantly, controlled state finances. The ability to control finance was an incredible tool for the Senate's disposal, as that gave them leverage when the Germanic tribes decided they wanted to give taking over Rome just one more try, and the Emperor needed additional funds to wage war.

Conclusion

The Roman Republic, and SPQR in general had been a civilization that stood the test of time, and ultimately existed for roughly 1800 years.The way they wrote, sculpted, and governed shaped, and continues to shape, the world we live in today. Their ability to govern, reform, and adapt to their growing environment is what ultimately allowed them to exist for almost two millennia, and prove themselves such a successful civilization.

3 0
3 years ago
What animals did plains Indians depend on, and how did they use animals?
Natalija [7]

Answer:

Thee Plains Indians depended on two animals, the horse and the buffalo. The Spanish brought horses to America in the 1500s. Plains Indians learned to ride horses, and hunters used them to follow buffalo herds.

HOPE THIS HELPED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XDDDDDDD

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What organization supported a separate black culture?
    15·1 answer
  • What did the "Emancipation Manifesto"
    13·2 answers
  • Did Pocahontas intervene and save John smith from being killed by her farther, Powhatan
    9·1 answer
  • Why did the Navy choose to honor Hope by naming a ship after him? Because he served on active duty in the military during WWII B
    10·2 answers
  • Which statement best describes the reason that Indians sought independence<br>​
    10·1 answer
  • what happened to many of the christians in the east who did not accept the head of the church in rome?
    10·1 answer
  • ¿Cuáles fueron las causas del colonialismo e imperialismo en Africa y Asia?
    7·1 answer
  • Should the US have intervened in the Russian Civil War?
    10·1 answer
  • What did legislators think about Truman's Civil Rights Legislation?​
    9·1 answer
  • What was the significance of conquering<br> Timbuktu?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!