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
OverLord2011 [107]
3 years ago
8

What was a direct result of the Presidential Committee on Civil Rights’ findings? two executive ordersimpeachment of Trumanincep

tion of the Cold Warthe Marshall Plan
History
1 answer:
Leona [35]3 years ago
5 0
The correct answer is two executive orders.

The President's Committee on Civil Rights was put in place under President Harry Truman in December of 1946 and lasted for one year. The goal of this committee was to report to Truman on civil rights within the US and how protect these rights for citizens. After the report was given to Truman, he passed two different executive orders.

Executive Order 9980 resulted in the desegregation of the federal work force.

Executive Order 9981 resulted in the desegregation of the United States military.
You might be interested in
Why did the U.S. national government struggle to pass new laws under the
Vlada [557]

Answer:

The answer is D) The articles required almost all states to agree to any new law.

Explanation:

I hope this helps, have a nice life

7 0
3 years ago
How did Brown vs. Board of Education change the rights of African Americans in Texas?
lord [1]
The decision made segregated public schooling unconstitutional
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
When did the Renaissance start
ANTONII [103]

Answer:

1300

Explanation:

i just know

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Is conflict unavoidable between Israel and Palestines? Why or why not?
Sonbull [250]
Hello there and thank you for joining Brainly, first of all. :)

Coming from a perspective of society and civilians, war is always unavoidable. However, there is a fine line between what is known as war and what conflict would be. And conflict, in most terms, is defined as complications. Complications can be resolved without further action, like war. That is, through discussions and government. 

Throughout history, we've heard of Crusades, and wars between these two unsettling countries. One, however, is struggling through poverty, and one.. well, lets just say is a powerful force. So, to help explain what the issue is between the two countries - both seemingly claim Jerusalem (or the holy land) as theirs. Multiple minor issues have arose between the times, but most of the conflict seems to be in a strip on Palestine's end called "Gaza". Also known as where the two meet for war. Other areas struggle as well, but to sum this all up, civilians live in places where war is going on. That, right there, is war crime. And war crime on both ends since both did not find a solution to their arguments and disputes. Considering residents of both countries live there, that is also a complete disaster. 

So, moving on the question. Because the lack of accurate information has stung everyone, we don't quite know who is the right hand of this argument. Neither do we know under who's ownership the holy land is for sure, and who is sincerely belongs to. 
However, we can say that the dispute is avoidable under a circumstance. That is, to either 
1) Share the holy land, and unite as a state (which would be quite a difficulty considering both are of different religions)
2) Have one take it over (and that won't happen soon, in my view. Both hold is tightly and yearn for it strongly). 

Since both are terribly rare solutions, we can come to the conclusion that the conflict is unavoidable. Both believe it is their right to claim it, and all we can say is: May peace be embedded soon. I really hate seeing headlines that speak of more people dying and no one is doing anything about it. It hurts me greatly. 

I hope this helps you. Of course, this question is based off of a personal point of view. If this was explained it your class, and your instructor gave a direct answer to this question, you should probably trust your teacher because I'm no politician. (soon to be, though)
Please forgive me for any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.

Thank you! :) I enjoyed answering this one.  
6 0
4 years ago
What is the advantage of this story being told by a U.S. reporter from a
olga2289 [7]

Answer:

there won't be bias or yellow journalism

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did European nations compete for power in the years before World War I?
    9·2 answers
  • When business groups overthrew the Queen of Hawaii in 1891, who took over the government?
    13·1 answer
  • Did the Anti-Federalists accomplish any of their goals?
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following best illustrates the government’s concern for the plight of farmers?
    8·2 answers
  • Choose one major scientific idea of the Scientific Revolution. Explain why it is important to history.
    5·1 answer
  • The Federalists believed in...
    7·2 answers
  • Most of our knowledge of Socrates comes from one source, his student Plato, Why
    15·1 answer
  • The allocation of funding to public schools is administered by what executive department?
    5·1 answer
  • Who was able to conquer the Inca after the Spanish executed the Inca’s ruler?
    11·1 answer
  • Which of the following is true of the Battle of Iwo Jima?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!