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
yuradex [85]
2 years ago
13

An agreement to count slaves as three-fifths of a person was related to

History
1 answer:
e-lub [12.9K]2 years ago
8 0
The 3/5 Compromise was related to the Constitution
You might be interested in
Please help me im dumb...!!!
Elena-2011 [213]
<span>D) Congress immediately passed new environmental protection laws </span>
5 0
3 years ago
Traditionally, immigrants had come to America for economic opportunity and
Korvikt [17]
<span>Traditionally, immigrants had come to America for economic opportunity and religious freedom. The correct option among all the options that are given in the question is the second option or option "B". The other choices are incorrect and can be neglected. I hope that this is the one that has actually come to your help.</span>
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Whicj option describe a pull factor that influence european inmigration to the United States
Nataly_w [17]
Here is a list of pull factors as to why European immigrants to America during the late 19th and early 20th centuries:

1) Labor contracts- European immigrants were recruited by different American companies to come work for them. This guarantee of employment enticed many individuals to leave their homes.

2) Advertisement of cheap farmland- Many individuals wanted their own space and the ability to make themselves a living. Going to America to buy cheap farmland would afford them this opportunity.

3) Freedoms/Opportunity for a better life- America was advertised as a country where immigrants can start fresh and work hard in order to generate a new fulfilling life.
5 0
3 years ago
How can you use this Document E to argue that Alexander was great? *
rosijanka [135]

Answer:

Alexander was “great” because he easily conquered a lot of land and established prominent societies, like Alexandria.

Alexander wasn’t “great” because he was egotistical in naming a city after him and conquering land just for greed.

Alexander was “great” because he was smart enough to cross the river and use Porus’ own elephants against him.

Alexander was not “great” because he tricked a ruler and killed many men in war only because he was greedy and wanted more land.

Alexander was most likely very religious, and it seems that in Ancient Greek anyone seeking refuge in a temple should be shown mercy. Also, if Alexander had killed everyone in the city than there would have been no point in conquering the city except for land.

7 0
2 years ago
Helppppppp pleaseeeeeeeeee
zmey [24]
The answer is Metaphor
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which Progressive reform had the effect of allowing direct democracy?
    12·1 answer
  • Symbols associated with Aphrodite??
    12·2 answers
  • Please help! ASAP 20 points + brainliest!
    5·2 answers
  • During the Cold War, ''the West'' included
    7·1 answer
  • Which best describes the Cherokee Nation today?
    13·2 answers
  • List one or more alternate names for the Iroquois and Mohican Indian tribes and state the country to which it was loyal in the F
    13·1 answer
  • Aristotle favored what type of government?
    6·1 answer
  • Haemon argues that Creon’s indifference to the opinions of his subjects will result in the loss of their respect for his leaders
    5·1 answer
  • 100 POINTS &amp; BRAINLIEST FOR THE FIRST CORRECT ANSWER!!! :)
    12·2 answers
  • Match the woman to her description.
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!