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
bija089 [108]
2 years ago
6

Freeee points!!!!!!!!!!!

History
2 answers:
Nostrana [21]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Explanation:

TiliK225 [7]2 years ago
6 0
Thanks have a good day!!!
You might be interested in
Compare and contrast the ways that seventeenth-century
Lina20 [59]

Answer:

<h2>Important differences - Unlike the other two, Charles I was not associated with any political Party, and had not "risen through the ranks" to become Leader. As a King, he achieved his position by heredity, and since no-one can choose their parents, this was used to justify the doctrine of "Divine Right" - God dedcides that a child shall be born into a Royal succession, and it is blasphemy to make any attempt to change this. Similarly, it was therefore the "will of God" that he should be succeeded by one of his children - the eldest son, in the English and Scottish tradition. In England, there was also the unusual situation that, as well as being Head of State, the King was also Head of a particular religious organization - the "Church of England" - which meant that he could not be expected to recognise any other form of Christianity. It was his enforcement of this which aroused resistance by such men as Cromwell, who was against any enofrced religon, and for "liberty of conscience". (This was why Cromwell subsequently also opposed Parliament when it attempted to enforce Presbyterianism,) There is perhaps case for seeing a similarity in Stalin, since "Marxist/Leninist Communism" was in fact a "religion", even though a godless one. There are virtually no comparisons with Hitler.</h2>

3 0
3 years ago
Select ALL the correct answers.
Fantom [35]

time has a way of covering up the negative and the ugly. Rather than being a "happy time," the 1890's may have been one of the worst times for Americans.

First of all, the 1890's was a time when a very few individuals and families made fantastic fortunes and lived the life of kings. By the turn of the century Andrew Carnegie, the steel tycoon, made over $20 million a year tax-free (there were no income taxes then). Yet, the vast majority of Americans were barely getting by. One of Carnegie's steelworkers would have earned about $450 a year working 12-hour shifts six days a week.

This was also a time when thousands of immigrants were flooding into the country from Europe. Many of these immigrants remained in the eastern industrial cities working for low wages in dirty and dangerous jobs. During the 1890's, the United States had one of the highest industrial accident rates in the world. Yet, workers who were severely injured or crippled could rarely collect any compensation.

Strikes were illegal at this time. Workers who attempted to go out on strike were often arrested or even beaten up by company thugs. A particularly ugly situation developed at Andrew Carnegie's Homestead steel works outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1892. Open warfare broke out between strikers and private guards hired by Carnegie to break the strike. Rifles and even cannons were used in a series of battles between the two sides that left 10 dead.

Times were tough for rural Americans, too. Farmers constantly complained that their lives were ruled by eastern bankers and railroad men. Farmers had to contend with high interest rates for loans in order to buy land, seed and farm equipment. They also had to pay outrageous freight rates set by the railroads in order to get their products to market. Many farm foreclosures resulted when crops failed or prices for farm products dropped.

All these economic problems increased in 1893 when a severe economic depression struck. Many thousands of Americans lost their jobs, farms and homes. The prevailing attitude of government, however, was to stay out of the way of private business. Little was done by the government, from Congress on down to city councils, to reduce the economic suffering of the people.

Corruption and Reform

During the early years of the new century, those individuals who tried to approach government with proposals to improve the lot of factory workers, farmers and small businessmen had little success. Especially at the local and state levels of government, lawmakers were often controlled by political machines and special interest groups. At this time, local and state government reached a low point in American history. Greed, corruption, and outright bribery were common among many politicians.

A New York Times editorial of July 3, 1911, complained that "Respectable and well-meaning men all over the State and especially in this city, are going about saying: 'What is the use? You only replace one lot of rascals by another, generally worse."' Across the country in California, the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the state legislature and dictated how the state should be run. This was always to the benefit of the railroad. In many states at this time, railroads and other large corporations saw to it that legislatures did nothing to interfere with their profits, power and privilege.

By the early 1900's, reform minded individuals and groups spoke out increasingly against the "robber barons," as the big bankers, industrialists and railroad men were called. Farm, labor, and small business groups along with ministers and journalists charged that the enormous wealth of big business was secured by exploiting hardworking Americans. Political cartoonists portrayed big corporations like the Southern Pacific Railroad as grasping octopuses. A particular target of the reformers were city and state governments that often cooperated or were regularly paid off by the big business interests.

The period from 1890 to 1917 was a time of intense reform activity in the United States. Many different reform movements existed at this time, ranging from farmers who wanted to regulate railroad freight rates, to women fighting for the right to vote, to city social workers trying to improve the health of immigrant children. Generally, these advocates of reform were middle class professionals and small businessmen, both Republicans and Democrats. They wanted changes to take place in American society, but not radical or revolutionary changes. They wanted government to take a more active role in regulating big business. They also realized that before meaningful changes could take place, the stranglehold over local and state government by corrupt politicians and the huge corporations had to be broken. The reformers of this time called themselves "progressives."

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
What aggressive measure did Roosevelt take to build the canal
Mamont248 [21]

Answer: The Square Deal was Theodore Roosevelt's domestic program, which reflected his three major goals: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. These three demands are often referred to as the "three Cs" of Roosevelt's Square Deal.

Explanation: Theodore Roosevelt supported the Pure Food and Drug Act that was created after the investigation of the meat packing industry. He also used the Sherman Antitrust Act to break up a monopoly.

7 0
2 years ago
Watch the video of the 1969 moon landing from the Apollo mission. In the video, notice how Neil Armstrong is almost bouncing whe
SIZIF [17.4K]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

How is walking on the surface of the moon different from walking on the surface of Earth?

Answer: the lack of gravity is the answer. On planet earth, we have the gravity force. This allows all people and things to stay on the planet. No gravity on earth would mean no life on planet earth.

On the moon is different. The pull is greater on planet Earth than it is on the moon. The gravitational force limits astronauts to walk easily on the moon's surface. That is why we watch how funny Neil Amstrong walk-jumps on the surface of the moon.

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the moon. That is when he said his famous words: "That's a small step for man, one giant step for humanity," while millions of people were watching the historic event.

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
I need help with number 20. I'm clueless and this is due tomorrow!!
Yakvenalex [24]
The major problem caused from overharvesting lumber in the western United States is 'deforestation', which means cutting down way more trees than trees growing.
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • In 150 to 200 words, differentiate between the government-sanctioned violence in China under Mao and the government-sanctioned v
    7·1 answer
  • The welfare system was created in the 1940s after World War II to help returning soldiers.
    6·1 answer
  • Why do citizens have to register to vote?
    6·2 answers
  • What powers did the new government have under the Constitution that the Confederation lacked?
    8·1 answer
  • Which is one reason that the Byzantine Empire lasted a long time?
    11·1 answer
  • Finish this famous phrase: “Give me liberty, or give me _________.” a. tax exemption b. death c. freedom d. life
    10·2 answers
  • What role did slavery play in the american colonial? please helppppp asap
    9·1 answer
  • What is the definition or prospective voting?
    5·1 answer
  • How bad the Congress of Vienna laid the groundwork for the unification of Germany
    10·1 answer
  • Is this statement true or false?
    15·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!