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
Kruka [31]
2 years ago
11

Help please! I need an answer fast

History
1 answer:
kupik [55]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

b

Explanation:

You might be interested in
6. A primary source for getting specific information on a particular bill is
valina [46]
Congregational record
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why was the period during James monroes presidency called the era of good feelings
nasty-shy [4]
In that time period it called the era of good feelings because James did an amazing job during that period. he also made political differences to disappear and federalist party seemed almost nonexistent.

Hope this helps
3 0
3 years ago
What is the definition of Confederation?
PilotLPTM [1.2K]
There is the answer........

3 0
3 years ago
Why is the president asking Congress for a Declaration
Studentka2010 [4]

Answer:

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and threatened the life and safety of our nation

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the Constitution allow Slavery?<br><br> Please answer ASAP!!!
mars1129 [50]

Question- Why did the Constitution allow Slavery?

Answer- On Monday, Senator Bernie Sanders told his audience at Liberty University that the United States “in many ways was created” as a nation “from way back on racist principles.” Not everyone agreed. The historian Sean Wilentz took to The New York Times to write that Bernie Sanders—and a lot of his colleagues—have it all wrong about the founding of the United States. The Constitution that protected slavery for three generations, until a devastating war and a constitutional amendment changed the game, was actually antislavery because it didn’t explicitly recognize “property in humans.” Lincoln certainly said so, and cited the same passage from Madison’s notes that Wilentz used. But does that make it so? And does it gainsay Sanders’s inelegant but apparently necessary voicing of what ought to be obvious, what David Brion Davis, Wilentz’s scholarly mentor and my own, wrote back in 1966—that the nation was “in many ways” founded on racial slavery? If the absence of an ironclad guarantee of a right to property in men really “quashed” the slaveholders, it should be apparent in the rest of the document, by which the nation was actually governed. But of the 11 clauses in the Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10 protect slave property and the powers of masters. Only one, the international slave-trade clause, points to a possible future power by which, after 20 years, slavery might be curtailed—and it didn’t work out that way at all. The three-fifths clause, which states that three-fifths of “all other persons” (i.e. slaves) will be counted for both taxation and representation, was a major boon to the slave states. This is well known; it’s astounding to see Wilentz try to pooh-pooh it. No, it wasn’t counting five-fifths, but counting 60 percent of slaves added enormously to slave-state power in the formative years of the republic. By 1800, northern critics called this phenomenon “the slave power” and called for its repeal. With the aid of the second article of the Constitution, which numbered presidential electors by adding the number of representatives in the House to the number of senators, the three-fifths clause enabled the elections of plantation masters Jefferson in 1800 and Polk in 1844. Just as importantly, the tax liability for three-fifths of the slaves turned out to mean nothing. Sure the federal government could pass a head tax, but it almost never did. It hardly could when the taxes had to emerge from the House, where the South was 60 percent overrepresented. So the South gained political power, without having to surrender much of anything in exchange. Indeed, all the powers delegated to the House—that is, the most democratic aspects of the Constitution—were disproportionately affected by what critics quickly came to call “slave representation.” These included the commerce clause—a compromise measure that gave the federal government power to regulate commerce, but only at the price of giving disproportionate power to slave states. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congress was forbidden from passing export duties—at a time when most of the value of what the U.S. exported lay in slave-grown commodities. This was one of the few things (in addition to regulating the slave trade for 20 years) that Congress was forbidden to do. Slavery and democracy in the U.S. were joined at the 60-percent-replaced hip. Another clause in Article I allowed Congress to mobilize “the Militia” to “suppress insurrections”—again, the House with its disproportionate votes would decide whether a slave rebellion counted as an insurrection. Wilentz repeats the old saw that with the rise of the northwest, the slave power’s real bastion was the Senate. Hence the battles over the admission of slave and free states that punctuated the path to Civil War. But this reads history backwards from the 1850s, not forward from 1787.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What US Foreign policy doctrine did bush promise to enforce
    11·2 answers
  • Per capita GDP of a country is the?
    7·2 answers
  • Battle of salamis summary
    8·1 answer
  • At the end of the 19th Century, what country won control of South Africa in the Boer Wars?
    11·2 answers
  • the new innovations and spirit of entrepreneurialism of the industrial revolutions were outcomes of what
    11·1 answer
  • What was one way that the US supported Panama’s independence from Columbia
    6·2 answers
  • What was a result of universal white male suffrage?
    10·1 answer
  • HELLPPPPPPP<br> .....$.$.$$.$.
    10·2 answers
  • What was one negative consequences of the British raj
    11·1 answer
  • What was one effect of the rule of King Leopold II of Belgium on the Congo Free State?
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!