Difficulties on the US home front during WWII: food, gas, and clothing shortages and rationing; anxiety over the safety of friends and family members serving in the war; forced internment of Japanese Americans; general panic over safety following Pearl Harbor
Oyez.com helps alot with case just type it in and it give us the summary and tells you really good details
Answer:
D). All of the above.
Explanation:
As per the question, all the given statements assert the outcomes of different court decisions of the years 1944, 1946, and 1948. In Smith Vs. Allwright case, the ap-ex court of the U.S. declared that the voters can not be outcasted from the voting rights by discriminating against them on the grounds of race. While in <u>Morgan Vs. Virginia case, the supreme court announced that it was unconstitutional(violation of the constitution) to segregate the riders on the basis of their race in interstate commercial buses</u>. And in the Shelly v. Kraemer case, the court declared the racially confining covenants to be the breach of the 14th amendment that declares 'equal protection to all its citizens regarding the rights of property, freedom, and life.' Thus, <u>option D</u> is the correct answer.
Answer:
the low number of casualties once again showing the strength of patriot forces.The Patriot victory at Great Bridge had an impact on the course of the American Revolution that was out of all proportion to its size. It made the British position in Virginia untenable. It resulted in Virginia being free of any organized British presence for five critical years - free to provide massive amounts of men and supplies to the Continental Army with virtually no enemy interference. one of the earliest, smallest, shortest, least known yet most important actions of the American Revolution took place in Virginia within the present-day city of Chesapeake.
Explanation:
for the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. Instead of forging a compromise between Radical Republicans and moderates, his actions united the opposition against him. His bullheaded opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated all hope of using presidential authority to affect further compromises favorable to his position. In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.
Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well. Johnson's decision to support the return of the prewar social and economic system—except for slavery—cut short any hope of a redistribution of land to the freed people or a more far-reaching reform program in the South.
Historians naturally wonder what might have happened had Lincoln, a genius at political compromise and perhaps the most effective leader to ever serve as President, lived. Would African Americans have obtained more effective guarantees of their civil rights? Would Lincoln have better completed what one historian calls the "unfinished revolution" in racial justice and equality begun by the Civil War? Almost all historians believe that the outcome would have been far different under Lincoln's leadership.
Among historians, supporters of Johnson are few in recent years. However, from the 1870s to around the time of World War II, Johnson enjoyed high regard as a strong-willed President who took the courageous high ground in challenging Congress's unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority. In this view, much out of vogue today, Johnson is seen to have been motivated by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and by a firm belief in the separation of powers. This perspective reflected a generation of historians who were critical of Republican policy and skeptical of the viability of racial equality as a national policy. Even here, however, apologists for Johnson acknowledge his inability to effectively deal with congressional challenges due to his personal limitations as a leader.
