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
Mkey [24]
3 years ago
13

The 3/5 Compromise settled the argument of--

History
1 answer:
sasho [114]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

The third option

Explanation:

Considering that population ensured more votes, the south wanted to count their slaves as population. However, they were normally counted as property. So the government compromised by making 3 out of every 5 slaves count for population.

You might be interested in
What is the sacrifice involved in making one decision over another ?
Svetlanka [38]

The correct answer is an opportunity cost.

<em>The sacrifice involved in making one decision over another is called an opportunity cost. </em>

When talking about an opportunity cost, it is referred to as the benfits that exist when making a decision. It could be in business or a personal decision. When one individual makes a decision, there are other options left that can have benefits. The sacrifice involved in making one decision over another is called an opportunity cost. That is why is recommended to make a <u>cost-benefit analysis</u> to contemplate all the benefits.  


4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Explain how colonial leaders used the Boston Massacre to their advantage, and how the British actions in this period brought the
UkoKoshka [18]

Answer:

Explain how colonial leaders used the Boston Massacre to their advantage:The event was used as propaganda to drum up support against the British. ... How did the Boston Tea Party challenge British rule? Colonists defied the order to unload the tea by throwing it overboard so that it could not be unloaded or sold for profit

how the British actions in this period brought the colonists together in resistance:

When the French and Indian War finally ended in 1763, no British subject on either side of the Atlantic could have foreseen the coming conflicts between the parent country and its North American colonies. Even so, the seeds of these conflicts were planted during, and as a result of, this war. Keep in mind that the French and Indian War (known in Europe as the Seven Years' War) was a global conflict. Even though Great Britian defeated France and its allies, the victory came at great cost. In January 1763, Great Britain's national debt was more than 122 million pounds [the British monetary unit], an enormous sum for the time. Interest on the debt was more than 4.4 million pounds a year. Figuring out how to pay the interest alone absorbed the attention of the King and his ministers.

Cantonment of the forces in North America, 11 October 1765

The American Revolution and Its Era, 1750-1789

Nor was the problem of the imperial debt the only one facing British leaders in the wake of the Seven Years' War. Maintaining order in America was a significant challenge. Even with Britain's acquisition of Canada from France, the prospects of peaceful relations with the Native America tribes were not good. As a result, the British decided to keep a standing army in America. This decision would lead to a variety of problems with the colonists. In addition, an uprising on the Ohio frontier - Pontiac's Rebellion - led to the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade colonial settlement west of the Allegany Mountains. This, too, would lead to conflicts with land-hungry settlers and land speculators like George Washington (see map above).

British leaders also felt the need to tighten control over their empire. To be sure, laws regulating imperial trade and navigation had been on the books for generations, but American colonists were notorious for evading these regulations. They were even known to have traded with the French during the recently ended war. From the British point of view, it was only right that American colonists should pay their fair share of the costs for their own defense. If additional revenue could also be realized through stricter control of navigation and trade, so much the better. Thus the British began their attempts to reform the imperial system.

In 1764, Parliament enacted the Sugar Act, an attempt to raise revenue in the colonies through a tax on molasses. Although this tax had been on the books since the 1730s, smuggling and laxity of enforcement had blunted its sting. Now, however, the tax was to be enforced. An outcry arose from those affected, and colonists implemented several effective protest measures that centered around boycotting British goods. Then in 1765, Parliament enacted the Stamp Act, which placed taxes on paper, playing cards, and every legal document created in the colonies. Since this tax affected virtually everyone and extended British taxes to domestically produced and consumed goods, the reaction in the colonies was pervasive. The Stamp Act crisis was the first of many that would occur over the next decade and a half.

For additional documents related to these topics, search Loc.gov using such key words as Stamp Act, Indians, western lands, colonial trade, navigation, and the terms found in the documents. Another strategy is to browse relevant collections by date.

8 0
2 years ago
"In the late 1800s and early 1900s the federal government supported the efforts of the labor movement."
Katena32 [7]

Answer:

The Pullman Strike and Loewe Vs Lawlor

Explanation:

The Pullman Strike was an organised strike by the American Railway Union against the Pullman Company. The strike closed off many of the nations railroad traffic. Workers of the Pullman company had gone on strike in response to a reduction in wages and when this was unsuccessful, they increased their efforts and with the help of the AFU took it nationwide. They refused to couple or move any train that carried a Pullman car. At its peak the strike included  250,000 workers in 27 states.The federal government's response was to obtain an injunction against the union and to order them to stop interfering with trains. When they refused, President Cleveland sent in the army to stop strikers from interfering with the trains. Violence broke out and the strike collapsed. The leaders were sentenced to prison and the ARU dissolved.

Loewe V Lawlor was a Supreme Court decision that went against the rights of the labour movement. D. E. Loewe & Company had been subjected to a strike and a boycott as a result of it becoming an 'open shop'. The nationwide boycott was supported by the American Federation of Labor and persuaded retailers, wholesalers and customers not to buy from Loewe. This boycott cost him a large amount of money and he sued the union for violating the Sherman Antitrust Act (Another piece of legislation subsequently used to attack unions).

The case was sent to the US Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, which found that the lawsuit was out of the scope of the Sherman Act. However, upon appeal it then went to the Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of Loewe. The courts decision was important for two reasons. Firstly it allowed individual unionists to be held personally responsible for damages arising from the activities of their unions. Secondly, it effectively outlawed secondary boycott (Where members of different companies boycott in solidarity with the affected workers) as a violation of the Sherman Act. Both of these limited the ability of the unions to bring about change through striking and boycott.

Read more on Brainly.com - brainly.com/question/13463190#readmore

3 0
3 years ago
Clinton v. New York
MrRissso [65]

The correct answer is B.

Clinton v. New York was a decision enacted by the US Supreme Court in 1998, which stated that the line-item veto violated the Presentment Clause and, therefore, the US Constitution.

The line-item veto had been introduced by the Line Item Veto Act in 1996 and it allowed the chief of the executive power, the President, to veto fragments or provisions of a bill without vetoing the entire bill. In opposition, the Presentment Clause describes the procedure through which bills originating in Congress, become federal US law. Such procedures only contemplate the president's power or rejecting an entire bill.

8 0
3 years ago
PLEASE ANSWER I WILL GIVE 100 POINTS TO WHOEVER ANSWERS FIRST!!!! I NEED AN ANSWER ASSAP
Tems11 [23]

Answer:

He is writing to all the pilgrims telling them that they have to do work to get the freedom they want for themselves

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • When timur went to war with the ottomans and the delhi sultanate?
    13·2 answers
  • The commanders of Allied forces in the war against Japan were
    7·2 answers
  • Most Americans agreed on what two changes to the Articles of Confederation?
    7·2 answers
  • Describe how the attitudes and actions of the French and Dutch differed from those of Spain
    5·1 answer
  • Complete the statement below with the appropriate term.
    9·2 answers
  • What has been an important part of life in India?
    8·2 answers
  • Please I can’t fail this, easy question!
    10·1 answer
  • Meet my ult bias<br>free point​
    9·2 answers
  • Which one of the technology
    14·1 answer
  • WHAT IS THE ROOT WORD OF PROGRESSIVISM? DEFINE THAT WORD.WHAT WAS PROGRESSIVISM IN THE LATE 1800S AND EARLY 1900S? DOES IT STILL
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!