Answer:
Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding whether the federal government's law prohibiting liquor on the land of Santa Clara Pueblo impermissibly infringed on the State of New Mexico's police power under the equal footing doctrine.
Answer:
I'm pretty sure a but i dont knkw you do you
Answer:
Eli Whitney was the inventor of cotton gin and a pioneer in the mass production of cotton. By April 1793, Whitney had designed and constructed the cotton gin, a machine that automated the separation of cotton seeds from short staple cotton fiber.
Eli Whitney could not benefit from his invention because the limitations of his machine appeared, and his 1794 patent for cotton gin could not be kept in court until 1807. Whitney could not stop others from copying and selling his cotton gin design.
Eli Whitney and his business partner Phineas Miller decided to go into the ginning business themselves. They made as many cotton gins as possible and installed them throughout Georgia and the southern states. They took an unusual fee from the farmers, two-fifths of the profits brought by the cotton itself.
Farmers all over Georgia were indignant at the fact that they had to go to the cotton gins of Eli Whitney, where they had to pay what they considered an exorbitant tax. Instead, the planters began making their own versions of Eli Whitney’ gin and claiming they were “new” inventions. Miller filed costly lawsuits against the owners of these pirated versions, but due to loopholes in the wording of the patent act of 1793, they could not win any lawsuits until 1800, when the law was changed.
Seeking to make a profit and mired in legal battles, the partners finally agreed to license gins at a reasonable price.
Explanation:
Answer:
They believed that America was loaded with gold, silver, and precious stones, so they decided to find it and bring it back.
Answer:
<h2>Hi mate PLEASE MARK ME BRAINLIEST IF MY ANSWER IS CORRECT PLEASE </h2>
Explanation:
The three-fifths compromise was an agreement reached by the state delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Under the compromise, every enslaved American would be counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation and representation purposes.
Origins of the Three-Fifths Compromise
At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the founders of the United States were in the process of forming a union. Delegates agreed that the representation each state received in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College would be based on population, but the issue of slavery was a sticking point between the South and the North.
It benefitted Southern states to include enslaved people in their population counts, as that calculation would give them more seats in the House of Representatives and thus more political power. Delegates from Northern states, however, objected on the grounds that enslaved people could not vote, own property, or take advantage of the privileges that White men enjoyed. (None of the lawmakers called for the end of slavery, but some of the representatives did express their discomfort with it. George MAS on of VIRG inia called for anti-slave trade laws, and Gouverneur Morris of New York called slavery “a nefarious institution.”)
Ultimately, the delegates who objected to enslavement as an institution ignored their moral QUAL-ms in favor of unifying the states, thus leading to the creation of the three-fifths compromise.
