17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators (1913)
The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, made the Senate an assembly where the states would have equal representation. Each state legislature would elect two senators to 6-year terms. Late in the 19th century, some state legislatures deadlocked over the election of a senator when different parties controlled different houses, and Senate vacancies could last months or years. In other cases, special interests or political machines gained control over the state legislature. Progressive reformers dismissed individuals elected by such legislatures as puppets and the Senate as a "millionaire’s club" serving powerful private interests.
One Progressive response to these concerns was the "Oregon system," which utilized a state primary election to identify the voters’ choice for Senator while pledging all candidates for the state legislature to honor the primary’s result. Over half of the states adopted the "Oregon system," but the 1912 Senate investigation of bribery and corruption in the election of Illinois Senator William Lorimer indicated that only a constitutional amendment mandating the direct election of Senators by a state’s citizenry would allay public demands for reform.
When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a "race rider" meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. This would be done by vesting complete control of Senate elections in state governments. A substitute amendment by Senator Joseph L. Bristow of Kansas provided for the direct election of Senators without the "race rider." It was adopted by the Senate on a close vote before the proposed constitutional amendment itself passed the Senate. Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment.
The Jewish people, since they appear in the history seem to have lot of problems with the other people that lived around them, often being persecuted or enslaved.
Initially they have been enslaved by the Egyptians and were not in nice relations with them, saving themselves by the scratch, but ending up in a desert. After they settled in what is now Israel, they have been conquered by the Assyrians, and since they were rebellious, the Assyrians systemically misplaced them out of their homeland. After that came the Romans, and it was similar, as part of them was again moved forcefully in other places of the empire. The Muslim Caliphates showed no mercy toward them, and they were terrorized and forced to move away. Then they had troubles in Europe as well, especially with the Spanish inquisition where they were burned alive publicly or killed without any mercy.
You will have to look at whether or not the creator of the source had a really positive or negative outlook on the situation.
If they are -for example- great friends with a bully, they will not tell as much of the truth, but if they are enemies, they may tell a very exaggerated truth to get them in trouble.
You must look for a very neutral feeling on both sides of the matter. If the author has an opinion, more likely than not it will affect the way they share the information
<span>The immediate causes of the War of 1812
were a series of economic sanctions taken by the British and French
against the US as part of the Napoleonic Wars and American outrage at
the British practice of impressment, especially after the Chesapeake
incident of 1807.. Hope I helped</span>
Answer:
made soil dry
Explanation:
add me on insta boss_man2935
