Answer:
Girondists were a group of people distant from any political affiliation, a group of individuals with a common political purpose.
Girondists reacted to Robespierre's Reign of Terror by putting up terms before Robespierre.
Explanation:
The Girondists, also known as Girondins were a group of a remote political factions. During the French Revolution, the Girondists were one of the prominent parties of the Legislative Assembly.
The Reign of Terror was a period in French history, where hundreds and thousands of people were massacred publicly. The Reign of Terror, also known as the Terror, was decreed by Robespierre, to inflict terror in the hearts of people who were not in support of their revolution.
The Girondists reacted to the Reign of Terror by putting up terms before Robespierre.
Answer:A
Explanations I googled it
The cause of the Scopes Trial was disagreement about evolution.
One side thought that evolution should be taught in schools, while another side
said that it shouldn’t. It was also said that teaching of evolution was in
violation of Tennessee’s Butler Act which stated that it was unlawful to teach evolution
in any state-funded school.
It was purposely meant to also bring publicity, but in the
end, John Scopes was fined $100 dollars which is equivalent to over $1000
dollars today. Many of the people and reporters went to the “big-shot” lawyers involved
in the case so, the lawyers to morph the truth into anything they wished and
the public hung on to their words. One thing it teaches is that we need to look
at both sides because one side could be changed to what someone wants.
Neither, but if he was alive during the Civil War, he would have sided with the South.
Answer:
1. The author uses the words "undefined", "unbounded" and "immense" to describe the powers of the constitution.
2. Upset: it makes the Congress even more powerful than it’s previous long list of expressed powers
3. A Bill of Rights is necessary to protect the rights of citizens. The proposed Constitution does not do enough.
4. Yes he does, and it matters because if you don’t trust the people in power you wouldn’t have a real nation.
5.He seems more like an Anti-Federalist.
Part Two
1. Unnecessary and dangerous
2. From the Federalist No.84
3. No because he believes that its unnecessary and not needed in the constitution.
4. That the bill of rights is pointless and not realistic for the American people.
5 He is defiantly Anti-Federalist; He goes against everything Federalism is for.
