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
Angelina_Jolie [31]
2 years ago
11

Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier all define a citizen to be a person in the United States, entitled to vote and hold office.

English
2 answers:
Jobisdone [24]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

B

Explanation:

BabaBlast [244]2 years ago
6 0

Answer: by mentioning the idea that women are not people

Explanation:

A citizen is a person in the United states and yet women were people in the United States but still could not vote. Susan Anthony is therefore asking if women were not people as well because only that would explain why they did not have the right to vote.

In saying this she connected with the emotions of women who in being made to feel like second-class citizens did not feel like they were people.

You might be interested in
Was napoleon good or bad for france?why.
Alja [10]
 <span>Bonaparte was regarded by all of Europe except France as a megalomaniac cruel tyrant - until about 1812. By the end of that year, there was a powerful anti-Bonaparte opposition developing in France also. The carnage that accompanied his reign/rule/administration came to be feared and hated by the French themselves once the glorious days of repeated victory were passed. Unfortunately, the French and the Allies through the Congress of Vienna were unable to provide a viable and credible alternative head of state, so that Napoleon-nostaglia returned within 10 years of his death. 

However, Bonaparte did introduce innovations not only in France but throughout Europe and the western world, and they are noteworthy. First, he provided a rational basis for weights and measures instead of the thousands of alternative measures that had been in use for centuries. We call it the Metric System and it works well in all of science and technology, and in commerce except in USA and a few other places. 

Second, he introduced an integrated system of civil and criminal laws which we call the Napoleonic Code. Some parts of it have been problematical (notably the inheritance laws) and need reforming, but it has stood the test of 200 years, and is well understood. Even the later monarchies and republics in France continued to use the Code; so well was it thought out. 

Third, he introduced the Continental System of agriculture and free trade between (occupied) nations. It remains as a model for the European Union and worked well in its own day. Even the Confederation of the Rhine, which led to the creation of the Zolverein and then to a unified Germany, was based on Bonapartist principles. I don't think the Germans or anyone else is willing to recognise this intellectual debt today. 

Fourth, he promoted French science and learning which had been damaged so badly by the Revolution. Medicine, chemistry, physics, astonomy and economics were all encouraged so that French higher education became a model for the century - to be emulated by any modern country with pretentions to culture. 

Despite all these, Bonaparte was a mass murderer; of the French as well as other peoples in Europe. He engaged in military campaigns, backed by an elitist philosophy, to extend French hegemony and can be recognised today in all that was wrong with Nazi domination of Europe and now in USA plans for the domination of the rest of the world. 

For a short time, he was a military and administrative success but his legacy was one of poverty, defeat and a distrust of the French. He seemed to offer a glorious change to French history, in which the French became winners of wars. In reality, he was just another winner of battles but, ultimately, he confirmed the French experience of losing every war in which they have engaged. Such a pity for a man of potential and flair, but his early success simply went to his head and he seemed to believe that he was invincible and omnipotent. That's a good definition of a megalomaniac, don't you think?</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Create a graph illustrating the effect of a price floor on the quantity of a good and 3 to 4 sentences summarize the graph
siniylev [52]
Jesus loves u bro

im spreading the gospel
5 0
2 years ago
Explain how each creature Beowulf battles represents an extreme and dangerous form of moral values and behavior
Illusion [34]
The three monstrous creatures that Beowulf fights are Grendel, Grendel's mother, and the Dragon. All three of them represent an inversion of Anglo-Saxonic core virtues.

1. Grendel is described as Cain's descendant, which means he is the devil's lot, fatherless (as he is not worthy to bear a name of a father), and bearing the sin of fratricide (killing one's own brother). He kills and devours 30 warriors in their sleep, which is a coward's act. He is also bloodthirsty - he doesn't kill because of honor, but because he is a carnivorous beast.

2. Grendel's mother is a female villain. We don't get to know many details about her physical appearance, which makes her more of an archetype than an actual character. She wants to revenge her son, which means she acts according to the unwritten rules of blood feuds. But in Anglo-Saxon culture, it was not a woman's duty to act on revenge. It is a male prerogative.

3. Dragon, the last villain Beowulf fights, represents some kind of inversion of kingly virtues. At the moment, Beowulf has been ruling for over 50 years. Of course, he is a just and righteous king, generous toward his warriors and subjects. On the other side, the Dragon is a destructive, irrational force that poses an ultimate threat to the kingdom. He jealously guards the treasure and attacks the realm because a single cup has been stolen from him. He is the exact opposite of what Beowulf represents, and that makes him Beowulf's antipode.
5 0
3 years ago
Choose the best topic sentence for the following passage. Slow music can make you feel sad. Upbeat music can make you feel happy
sp2606 [1]

Music can influence how a person acts and feels.

6 0
3 years ago
Which one of the following characteristics indicates that someone is observant?
yaroslaw [1]

Answer: C

Explanation: Observant people are typically smart, so their IQ wouldn't be low. Using imagination means to make things up, and an observant person would use facts, not imagination. Also, you can rule letter D out because being observant means to notice things, not to spend time alone.

5 0
1 year ago
Other questions:
  • What information belongs in the heading of a personal letter?
    6·2 answers
  • What is the point of view from "The Tell-Tale Heart"
    6·1 answer
  • Does the speaker in “Analysis of Baseball” actually analyze the game? Explain, citing details from the poem to support your resp
    9·1 answer
  • Identify the themes introduced in Act 1 of Hamlet.
    12·1 answer
  • What is the primary purpose of epic myths?
    5·1 answer
  • WILL GIVE BRAINLIEST TO BEST ANSWER
    6·1 answer
  • Which of the following CANNOT be narratives?
    8·2 answers
  • Click to read the passage from The Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka. Then
    5·1 answer
  • Help will give brainliest
    12·2 answers
  • You really should be careful when handling that glass,” instructed the teacher.
    5·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!