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
Stella [2.4K]
3 years ago
9

The excerpt supports what point of view about the cause of the Civil War?

History
1 answer:
puteri [66]3 years ago
7 0
South Carolina joined the Confederacy on April 3rd 1861, they believed the union was going against their constitutional rights, and they didn’t want to be controlled by the government.
You might be interested in
Name one problem that led to the Civil War.
Doss [256]
The answer is D because the north didn’t like slavery but the south did
8 0
3 years ago
3) This is a person who is not a citizen of the state in which they reside and may be there for a short or long period of time.
Paul [167]

Answer:

Alien

Explanation:

<u>Term 'Alien' in a legal sense refers to the person who is the resident of the foreign country while not being a proper lawful citizen of it.</u>

They can be

  • legal alien - have some kind of issued permit to be a resident of the country for a certain time, such as tourist visa, work permit, or another kind of document issued by the government
  • illegal alien - a non-recorded visitor who can even enter the country legally, but in the meantime fallen out of the legal framework of the resistance and keep staying in the country outside of boarders of law.

8 0
3 years ago
Why might irene emerson have rejected dred scotts offer to purchase his family and their freedom
notka56 [123]

Answer:

ONIONS

Explanation:

In its 1857 decision that stunned the nation, the United States Supreme Court upheld slavery in United States territories, denied the legality of black citizenship in America, and declared the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional. All of this was the result of an April 1846 action when Dred Scott innocently made his mark with an "X," signing his petition in a pro forma freedom suit, initiated under Missouri law, to sue for freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. Desiring freedom, his case instead became the lightning rod for sectional bitterness and hostility that was only resolved by war.

image of Dred Scott

Dred Scott

Credit: Missouri Historical Society

"Dred Scott, a man of color, respectfully states. he is claimed as a slave."

(Petition to Sue for Freedom, 6 April 1846)

Initially, Scott's case for freedom was routine and relatively insignificant, like hundreds of others that passed through the St. Louis Circuit Court. The cases were allowed because a Missouri statute stated that any person, black or white, held in wrongful enslavement could sue for freedom. The petition that Dred Scott signed indicated the reasons he felt he was entitled to freedom. Scott's owner, Dr. John Emerson, was a United States Army surgeon who traveled to various military posts in the free state of Illinois and the free Wisconsin Territory. Dred Scott traveled with him and, therefore, resided in areas where slavery was outlawed. Because of Missouri's long-standing "once free, always free" judicial standard in determining freedom suits, slaves who were taken to such areas were freed-even if they returned to the slave state of Missouri. Once the bonds of slavery were broken, they did not reattach.

Dred Scott was born to slave parents in Virginia sometime around the turn of the nineteenth century. His parents may have been the property of Peter Blow, or Blow may have purchased Scott at a later date. The mystery of exact ownership is one that would follow Dred Scott, and later his family, throughout their lives as slaves. With few records extant, it is difficult to identify exactly when ownership of the family was transferred to various parties. By 1830, Peter Blow had settled his family of four sons and three daughters and his six slaves in St. Louis. This was after having moved from Virginia to Alabama, to attempt farming near Huntsville, and, when that failed, a move from Alabama to Missouri. In St. Louis, Peter Blow undertook the running of a boarding house, the Jefferson Hotel. Within a year, though, his wife Elizabeth died and on June 23, 1832, Peter Blow passed away.

image of front view of St. Louis

Front view of St. Louis

Credit: Missouri Historical Society

The Blow children remained in St. Louis after the deaths of their parents and became well established in the city's society through marriage to prominent families. Charlotte Taylor Blow married Joseph Charless, Jr., in November 1831; his father had established the first newspaper west of the Mississippi River and had been a leading opponent of slavery while editor. Charless, Jr., operated a wholesale drug and paint store, Charless & Company (later Charless, Blow, & Company when brothers-in-law Henry Taylor Blow and Taylor Blow became partners). Martha Ella Blow married attorney Charles Drake in 1835. Drake is better known in history for his role in the creation of Missouri's 1865 constitution. As a leader of the Radical Republican Party after the Civil War, he was determined to punish those considered Southern sympathizers; the constitution he helped author took away many of their rights, including enfranchisement. Peter Ethelrod Blow married Eugenie LaBeaume in 1833. She was from an old French banking family; her oldest brother was a wealthy businessman who, in partnership with Blow, formed Peter E. Blow & Company. She had two other brothers; one was the St. Louis County sheriff for a time in the 1840s, and one, Charles Edmund LaBeaume, was a St. Louis attorney who played an important role in Dred Scott's freedom suits. All of these St. Louis connections proved helpful to Dred Scott.

<h2>Hope this helps :)</h2>
5 0
3 years ago
The colonists protested the Stamp Act by A. attacking British ships carrying trade goods. B. refusing to buy or use printed mate
UkoKoshka [18]
I am pretty sure it is C Boycotting goods and that is what led to them leaving England and starting the revolutionary war
4 0
3 years ago
Germany and Japan seriously underestimated Americans ability to ?
iogann1982 [59]

Germany and Japan seriously underestimated Americans ability to produce war supplies.

Explanation:

Germany and Japan both were superior in troops and weapons production. They were technologically upgraded and master mind in planning the supply procurement time to time. They underestimated Americans ability to produce war supplies.

In world war I air, water and land all three space were occupied for fighting. Defense, navy and air force were in charge of setting the required weapons and troops. America was good enough to produce naval weapons. German and Japan commanders and soldiers were mainly underestimate the ability of America.

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • (08.02 LC)
    11·2 answers
  • In 2014, there were approximately ________ political action committees (pacs) in the united states.
    9·1 answer
  • Which of the following was a cause of americans moving west in the early to mid-1800s?
    8·1 answer
  • How were Lenape involved in the French Indian war
    12·1 answer
  • What is the definition of czar.
    9·2 answers
  • A totalitarian rule differs from a democracy because
    14·1 answer
  • Which idea was part of Lincoln's plan for reconstruction
    13·1 answer
  • Identify two problems faced by the new Republic of Texas.
    8·1 answer
  • Chavez uses this excerpt to compare the plights of farm workers to those of women in the women’s rights movement. Americans with
    13·2 answers
  • Which region produced more Firearms (weapons) during the Civil War?<br> A. North<br> B. South
    9·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!