Slaves were considered property. Their owners wanted to restrict their freedom so they wouldn't be as likely to escape.
According to Richard Neustadt landmark book,"Presidential Power" he argued that the president's most fundamental power is the power to persuade. He said "Effective influence for the man in the White House stems from three related sources: first are the bargaining advantages inherent in his job with which to persuade other men that what he wants of them is what their own responsibilities require them to do. Second are the expectations of those other men regarding his ability and will to use the various advantages they think he has. Third are those men's estimates of how his public views him and how their publics may view them if they do what he wants."
This question refers to the lynching of Emmett Till.
This question refers to the moment in which Till was flirting with Carolyn Bryant. Although Till believed that his actions were relatively harmless, the older man warned him against them, as he knew they could lead to trouble.
This older man was a local, so he understood the social rules that regulated interactions between black and white people in the South. He knew how these interactions often led to problems for black people. He most likely learned the rules through the process of socialization that he engaged in from the moment he was born. They were passed down to him through his parents, friends, relatives, neighbours, etc. These rules are often enforced in a social way, not through law, but through the actions of the community. In this case, they were enforced through violence and murder.
Better transportation affected the growth and urbanization of cities by allowing more people to travel, which in turn led to more people settling down in these cities to start a new life.
Better communication affected the growth and urbanization of cities by allowing people to understand each other better, which led to more people coming to these cities and socializing, which improved economy. People who can communicate can perform business better and communicate outside of the city, drawing more people there.
In 1215, a band of rebellious medieval barons forced King John of England to agree to a laundry list of concessions later called the Great Charter, or in Latin, Magna Carta. Centuries later, America’s Founding Fathers took great inspiration from this medieval pact as they forged the nation’s founding documents—including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
For 18th-century political thinkers like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, Magna Carta was a potent symbol of liberty and the natural rights of man against an oppressive or unjust government. The Founding Fathers’ reverence for Magna Carta had less to do with the actual text of the document, which is mired in medieval law and outdated customs, than what it represented—an ancient pact safeguarding individual liberty.
“For early Americans, Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence were verbal representations of what liberty was and what government should be—protecting people rather than oppressing them,” says John Kaminski, director of the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Much in the same way that for the past 100 years the Statue of Liberty has been a visual representation of freedom, liberty, prosperity and welcoming.”
When the First Continental Congress met in 1774 to draft a Declaration of Rights and Grievances against King George III, they asserted that the rights of the English colonists to life, liberty and property were guaranteed by “the principles of the English constitution,” a.k.a. Magna Carta. On the title page of the 1774 Journal of The Proceedings of The Continental Congress is an image of 12 arms grasping a column on whose base is written “Magna Carta.
