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
velikii [3]
3 years ago
14

2. Compare and contrast social policy with economic policy. What are some examples

History
1 answer:
Crazy boy [7]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Well, the social policy is very communist while the economic policy is very socialist. They would address the same problems in many different ways such as a food shortage, the social policy would want to spread more welfare while the economic policy would want to spread more capitalism.

Explanation:

I am a college major in history it is fine if you copy and paste, I wrote this myself!!

Mark me brainliest!!!

You might be interested in
Please help i have no idea <br> PLEASE HELP FAST
Mars2501 [29]

Answer:

D

Explanation:

Hope this helps :)

4 0
2 years ago
explain how the Wilmot Proviso was so controversial in raising the debate over the slave issue again to such intense levels.
Pachacha [2.7K]

The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.

Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)

7 0
2 years ago
What was john bell's view on southern secession?
Inessa05 [86]

Answer:

During his 1860 presidential campaign, he argued that secession was unnecessary since the Constitution protected slavery, an argument that resonated with voters in border states, helping him capture the electoral votes of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia.

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Despite the Fourteenth Amendment, which group was still being denied United States citizenship?
Zarrin [17]
Both A and E seem right but I think it’s E
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following actions was NOT an example set by President
makkiz [27]

Answer: It should be a. He didn't want to be president in the first place.

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was one major effect of the Erie Canal on the united states in the early nineteenth century?
    5·2 answers
  • All men were given the right to vote in the Fifteenth Amendment, and women in the _______ Amendment.
    13·2 answers
  • Define: primary and secondary sources
    12·1 answer
  • Following the Civil War, Texans and settlers from the Southern states began moving westward to open lands in the High Plains and
    9·1 answer
  • HELP ASAP! GIVING BRAINLIEST
    12·1 answer
  • Athens led Greece in the Persian Wars because...<br> Brainlest who ever answers!!!!!<br>​
    9·1 answer
  • Explain: Neutrality Act (1939) and Lend-Lease Act
    10·1 answer
  • Southwest Asia and South Asia has many problems, choose one country and give one problem that the country has.
    9·2 answers
  • According to the declaration of independence, what is the job of government?.
    12·1 answer
  • 8. What was Frederick the Great considered to be?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!