Answer:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[2][3] The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Answer: A) They They increased crop yield and caused overproduction, eventually making supply grow greater than demand and farmers lose income.
Explanation: First, farmers claimed that farm prices were falling and, as a consequence, so were their incomes. They generally blamed low prices on over-production. In short, farmers felt their economic and political interests were being shortchanged by a gang of greedy railroads, creditors, and industrialists.
Hope This Helped have a nice day!
Answer:
The contents were the Fourteen Points.
Explanation:
Fourteen Points was a speech <em>U.S. President Woodrow Wilson</em> gave in 1918, at the end of WWI in which he provided his <em>vision for a reconstruction plan for Europe. </em>
He emphasized his idea and vision of a <em>stable and long-lasting peace </em>across the world. He centered on 14 strategies to ensure this, mostly aimed at the <em>territorial reconstruction of Europe. </em>
<span>Any action that could be interpreted (however falsely) as treasonous to the Revolutionary government of France at the time; chiefly, anything that smacked of monarchist sentiment or a return to the "old order," such as supporting landed nobility in any fashion, acting "against" the interests of the Committee, or simply rubbing someone the wrong way.</span>
