Answer:
F
Explanation:
Alabama became part of the U.S. in 1819
<span>Circumvent the Navigation Acts by engaging in illegal trade
please mark me brainliest </span>
Answer:
Allow the Southern States to re-enter as quickly as possible
Explanation:
Lincoln's main goal throughout the entire civil war was to reunify the country. He had a 10 point plan for this that included pledging alligence to the Union, which he did not get to implement due to his death following the war. Johnson was uninterested in making the south pay any restitution as a southerner himself, he let the south reenter as quickly as he could and removed military presence in the former confederate territories.
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
