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
Romashka-Z-Leto [24]
2 years ago
14

Which two items explain why the Articles of Confederation were considered weak? It did not permit Congress to conduct foreign af

fairs. It gave too much power to the states. It provided for a very strong federal government. It did not allow Congress to issue currency. Reset Next​
History
1 answer:
mojhsa [17]2 years ago
4 0

Answer:

  • It gave too much power to the states.
  • It did not allow Congress to issue currency.

Explanation:

When the framers of the Articles of Confederation designed it, they did not want a Federal government that would be too powerful. They therefore gave Congress reduced powers that would keep it subservient to states.

The states therefore had too much power. They could negotiate trade deals with each other and decided the amount of taxes they would give the Federal government. They could also issue their own currency which meant that this was another power that Congress did not have.

You might be interested in
Which statement best completes the diagram?
DerKrebs [107]

Answer:

B Two countries have different natural resources

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why do you think Hitler assumed the west would not fight over Poland?​
yuradex [85]

Answer:

I think he is a killer and criminal person

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was immigrants drawn to cities in the northeast and midweat?
koban [17]
Immigrants were drawn to Cities in the Northeast and Midwest because there was Housing and Job Opportunities.<span />
8 0
3 years ago
What is anti-Semitism?
Paraphin [41]
The racial and religious discrimination against Jewish people. Think of Nazism.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was happening in russia in the 1800s?
mestny [16]

Russia fought the Crimean War (1853-56) with Europe's largest standing army, and Russia's population was greater than that of France and Britain combined, but it failed to defend its territory, the Crimea, from attack. This failure shocked the Russians and demonstrated to them the inadequacy of their weaponry and transport and their economic backwardness relative to the British and French.

Being unable to defend his realm from foreign attack was a great humiliation for Tsar Nicholas I, who died in 1855 toward the end of the war. He was succeeded that year by his eldest son, Alexander II, who feared arousing the Russian people by an inglorious end to the war. But the best he could do was a humiliating treaty, the Treaty of Paris – signed on March 30, 1856. The treaty forbade Russian naval bases or warships on the Black Sea, leaving the Russians without protection from pirates along its 1,000 miles of Black Sea coastline, and leaving unprotected merchant ships that had to pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. The treaty removed Russia's claim of protection of Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire, and it allowed the Turks to make the Bosporus a naval arsenal and a place where the fleets of Russia's enemies could assemble to intimidate Russia.

In his manifesto announcing the end of the war, Alexander II promised the Russian people reform, and his message was widely welcomed. Those in Russia who read books were eager for reform, some of them with a Hegelian confidence in historical development. These readers were more nationalistic than Russia's intellectuals had been in the early years of the century. Devotion to the French language and to literature from Britain and Germany had declined since then. The Russians had been developing their own literature, with authors such as Aleksandr Pushkin (1799-1837), Nicolai Gogol (1809-62), Ivan Turgenev (1818-83) and Feodor Dostoievski (1821-81). And Russian literature had been producing a greater recognition of serfs as human beings.

In addition to a more productive economy, many intellectuals hoped for more of a rule of law and for an advance in rights and obligations for everyone – a continuation of autocracy but less arbitrary. From these intellectuals came an appeal for freer universities, colleges and schools and a greater freedom of the press. "It is not light which is dangerous, but darkness," wrote Russia's official historian, Mikhail Pogodin.

And on the minds of reformers was the abolition of serfdom. In Russia were more the 22 million serfs, compared to 4 million slaves in the United States. They were around 44 percent of Russia's population, and described as slaves. They were the property of a little over 100,000 land owning lords (pomeshchiki). Some were owned by religious foundations, and some by the tsar (state peasants). Some labored for people other than their lords, but they had to make regular payments to their lord, with some of the more wealthy lords owning enough serfs to make a living from these payments.

Russia's peasants had become serfs following the devastation from war with the Tartars in the 1200s, when homeless peasants settled on the land owned by the wealthy. By the 1500s these peasants had come under the complete domination of the landowners, and in the 1600s, those peasants working the lord's land or working in the lord's house had become bound to the lords by law, the landowners having the right to sell them as individuals or families. And sexual exploitation of female serfs had become common.

It was the landowner who chose which of his serfs would serve in Russia's military – a twenty-five-year obligation. In the first half of the 1800s, serf uprisings in the hundreds had occurred, and serfs in great number had been running away from their lords. But in contrast to slavery in the United States, virtually no one in Russia was defending serfdom ideologically. There was to be no racial divide or Biblical quotation to argue about. Those who owned serfs defended that ownership merely as selfish interest. Public opinion overwhelmingly favored emancipation, many believing that freeing the serfs would help Russia advance economically to the level at least of Britain or France. Those opposed to emancipation were isolated – among them the tsar's wife and mother, who feared freedom for so many would not be good for Russia.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of these occurred as a direct result of the U.S.'s late-nineteenth century industrialization?
    13·2 answers
  • In 1893, the Cleveland administration's repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act A. caused the value of currency to contract. B
    12·1 answer
  • In which way did the goals for Soviet intervention in Europe differ from those of the United States.
    7·2 answers
  • Who can limit the amount of time to debate a bill
    7·1 answer
  • Which Two branches of the Military did the Medal of Honor first go to?
    15·2 answers
  • A person of Spanish and American Indian descent is referred to as:
    7·2 answers
  • How did nationalism play an impact in the first World War
    9·2 answers
  • Which of the following statements characterizes Germany in the 1920s?
    13·1 answer
  • The steep mountains found in South America forced early farmers to A stop growing the teosinte plant B. cut terraces for plantin
    12·2 answers
  • Where is the western front line drawn in the europe 1914 map?
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!