<em><u>A cause of the dust bowl in the great plains was that Farmers did not plant enough wheat to maintain the soil.
</u></em>
<em><u></u></em>
Further Explanations:
The “Dust Bowl” was the era of severe dust storm and famine in America during the 1930s. It left a very hazardous impact on the ecology and the agriculture of the nation. The drought hit the land three times and its impact existed for more than 8 years.
The main reason behind the drought was thought to be the failure of dryland farming practices that prevented the Aeolian processes. Due to insufficient knowledge of ecology, the farmers conducted extensive plowing of the virgin topsoil. The natural deep-rooted grasses were displaced by the crops that loosened the soil and reduced the moisture of the soil. Further, the modern agricultural machines also led to the loosening of the soil. The gasoline tractors along with the combined harvester helped farmers to convert the grassland into cultivated land and the same time opened the door for extensive erosion.
Learn more
1. Courts of general jurisdiction typically have?<u>brainly.com/question/1146662
</u>
2. What happens when the quantity of a good supplied at a given price is greater than the quantity demanded?
<u>brainly.com/question/5600340
</u>
3. How did the battle of Okinawa affect president Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan?
<u>brainly.com/question/1323522
</u>
Answer detail
Grade: High School
Subject: History
Chapter: Dust Bowl
Keywords: Dust Bowl, dust storm, famine, America, drought, Aeolian, processes, knowledge, ecology, virgin, topsoil
It was repealed on December 17, 1943 by U.S. Representative Warren G. Magnuson
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -- The First Amendment
The inhabitants of the North American colonies did not have a legal right to express opposition to the British government that ruled them. Nonetheless, throughout the late 1700s, these early Americans did voice their discontent with the Crown. For example, they strongly denounced the British parliament's enactment of a series of taxes to pay off a large national debt that England had incurred in its Seven Years War with France. In newspaper articles, pamphlets and through boycotts, the colonists raised what would become their battle cry: "No taxation without representation!" And in 1773, the people of the Massachusetts Bay Colony demonstrated their outrage at the tax on tea in a dramatic act of civil disobedience: the Boston Tea Party.
The early Americans also frequently criticized the much-despised local representatives of the Crown. But they protested at their peril, for the English common law doctrine of "seditious libel" had been incorporated into the law of the American colonies. That doctrine permitted prosecution for "false, scandalous and malicious writing" that had "the intent to defame or to bring into contempt or disrepute" a private party or the government. Moreover, the law did not even accomodate the truth as a defense: in 15th century England, where absolute obedience to the Crown was considered essential to public safety, to call the king a fool or predict his demise was a crime punishable by death.
<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same list of options that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be the one having to do with the fact that the white southerners were afraid the newly freed blacks would reduce the economic opportunities for whites. </span></span>
The soldiers would dig a ditch, so they would be about five feet underground, hidden, and would shoot over the trench at the enemy, they would stay in the trench for weeks at a time, it was their bathroom, their kitchen, everything.
