Answer:
The work also tackles the complex relationship between Ireland and the anti-slavery movement. Douglass’s hosts in Ireland were mostly Quakers, many of whom were shielded from – and sometimes complicit in – the famine that was gripping the countryside. Similarly, many Irish in America were willing participants in slavery. Douglass’s meeting with Daniel O’Connell spurred the Irish leader to encourage the Irish community in America to support African-Americans in their fight against oppression. But his overtures went largely unheeded by the Irish political and Catholic community in the US, eager to ensure that their own people secured opportunities in their adopted country. The irony is captured in Kinahan’s work. In an interaction between Douglass and an Irish woman about to leave Cork for America, he informs her that the Irish had not always treated his people well. She replies: “Well then they’ve forgotten who they are.”
But ultimately, the work is concerned with exploring this important moment in Douglass’s life and its role in his development as a thinker and activist. As Daugherty says, Douglass’s experience in Ireland widened his understanding of what civil rights could encompass. “Douglass was much more than an anti-slavery voice. He was also a suffragette, for example, an advocate for other oppressed groups.”
Douglass himself captured the impact of his Irish journey in a letter he wrote from Belfast as he was about to leave: “I can truly say I have spent some of the happiest moments of my life since landing in this country. I seem to have undergone a transformation. I live a new life.”
Explanation:
D. They improved conditions on slave ships to help more people survive.
The supreme court decision under John Marshall leadership have extended federal powers, but not too much in the sense of destroying the federalist idea that brought the United States together. Marshall was guided by a strong commitment to judicial power and by a belief in the supremacy of national over state legislatures. His judicial vision was very much in keeping with the Federalist political program in line with the constitution.
It can be argued that someone not elected should not have power to shape government and law through the Expansion of the Judiciary in 1801, but the Marshall Court, and this decision in particular, established the principle of "judicial review" whereby Congressional laws and executive actions may be judged by the Supreme Court to be within the bounds of the Constitution.
It is definitely not appropriate that a political party ideology is implemented through the judiciary, however, In keeping with John Marshall's Federalist views, they generally favored strong government action and especially supported the supremacy of the federal government over state authorities as long as it was constitutional.
