The maryland toleration act did not bring complete religious freedom, as is so often assumed, and as a reading of this document will quickly prove. nor did it come about because of a profound humanistic conviction on the part of lord baltimore, the maryland proprietor. the act was a pragmatic solution to a serious problem. the catholics in originally catholic maryland had become a minority of the population although still powerful politically. they were in great danger of being ill-treated by the protestant majority. the toleration act, it was believed, was a way of providing protection for catholics while at the same time representing a nod in the direction of the english government, which in 1649 and for a dozen years thereafter was firmly under the control of the english puritans. nonetheless, the document is important because it did provide modest although impermanent protection for catholic marylanders and set a precedent to which others could refer. despite baltimore's catholic background and his desire to use maryland as a refuge for catholics persecuted elsewhere, the catholic church never became the established church. in the eighteenth century this distinction was given to the church of england.
Based on historical perspective, the significance of the place where the French built Fort Duquesne and where George Washington was ordered to build a fort is that "<u>It was near rivers important for controlling the Ohio Valley."</u>
<h3>Where and When was Fort Duquesne built?</h3>
Fort Duquesne was built in 1754 by the French around the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers in present-day Pennsylvania.
<h3>Reason George Washington ordered to build a fort at the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers</h3>
During the French Indian War between 1754 to 1763, Ohio River Valley was crucial for trading with Native Americans and settling for colonists.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is <u>"it was near rivers important for controlling the Ohio Valley</u>."
Learn more about Ohio Valley here: brainly.com/question/515682
He vetoed it for various reasons. For starters, he believed that it was a thing up to individual states and that it infringed on the states right to choose. Another reason was that he believed that such beneficial extension would not make people equal, but rather it would be racist towards the white people. His main argument, however, was that the bill would have a certain group gain rights that they are not entitled to, while a large part of the states does not even have representation in the congress, and that the congress needs to be enlarged first.
Correct matches:
1. charging an official with a misdeed c.impeachment
2. chosen; appointed F.nominated
3. to improve; to change; to make into a better quality e.amended
4. reverse; change to the opposite position b.overturn
5. whether the law or act is constitutional d.constitutionality
6. court determination of constitutionality of laws passed a. judicial review
The new deals included new constraint and safeguards on the banking industry and efforts to re-inflate the economy after prices had fallen sharply.
