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
saw5 [17]
3 years ago
8

ANSWER QUICK PLEASE!!!!

History
2 answers:
AlekseyPX3 years ago
7 0

A. They kept African Americans from being able to vote.

Jim Crow laws suppressed racial miniorities from voting, those laws directly supressed black voters through poll taxes and literacy tests.

emmasim [6.3K]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

They kept African Americans from voting so they made it to where you have  had to pass an literacy test to vote but this stopped poor white men from voting

Explanation:

You might be interested in
PLEASE HELP ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
Tanzania [10]

Explanation:

Simply, the judicial branch determines whether the Constitution allows certain laws to be passed. If the Supreme Court decides that a law passed by Congress is not allowable, then the law is considered unconstitutional and is erased. This gives the Supreme Court a tremendous amount of power.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS

MARK ME BRINILYLIST

6 0
2 years ago
Samuel Adams, and his idea of state rights, was supported by the party of?
Afina-wow [57]

Answer:the new nation

Those who did not support the Constitution came to be known as Anti-Federalists or ‘states-rights men’ and their most notable representative was Patrick Henry (who had refused to attend the Convention because of his suspicion of it, declaring “I smell a rat, tending toward monarchy

Others included George Clinton, Richard Henry Lee and Mercy Otis Warren, the female chronicler. Thomas Jefferson was also sharply critical of the Constitution, though he actively supported some parts of it, and later explained that he was not fully Anti-Federalist but somewhere between the two positions.

As a group, Anti-Federalists were concerned about several issues. They feared that sovereignty, autonomy and states’ rights would be trampled by the newly-empowered national government. They argued that over time the power and influence of the states would be eroded or ‘drained’ by the federal government. They worried that the centralisation of power would put control into the hands of an urban-based elite. They expressed concern that the president, with control of the army, might become a military dictator (“[the presidency] would be a foetus of monarchy!” said Edmund Randolph). They feared the separation of powers in the Constitution was not strong enough or distinct enough. They panicked about the possible implications for personal liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to worship freely, which to many Americans had been the real driving issue behind the revolution.

A historian’s view:

“The basic concept stressed [in many anti-Federalist works] was the evil effect of power. ‘The love of power is natural… it is insatiable…’ wrote Burgh. ‘Power renders men wanton, insolent to others and fond of themselves,’ observed Gordon and Trenchard… This mistrust of power was characteristic of American political thought during this period.”

Unlike their opposition, the Anti-Federalists did not engage in a coordinated and sustained propaganda barrage. While the Federalist Papers appeared as 85 single editions, published regularly and with clear arguments and tone, the Anti-Federalists wrote sporadically, using pseudonyms such as Cato, Federal Farmer  Centinel and Brutus. The quality of their pamphlets did not approach those of the Federalists. Intellectually outgunned and lacking a figurehead leader such as Washington, the Anti-Federalists were not able to convince enough of their cause, though they enjoyed plenty of support, particularly in the larger states and in the south. Some Americans saw the flaws in both sides and supported neither the federalist or anti-federalist points-of-view. The picture above, The Looking Glass for 1787: A House Divided against itself cannot Stand, shows the two camps pulling the state of Connecticut apart with their constant bickering and equivocation.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
What was the effect of Christopher Columbus's discovery of the West Indies in 1492?
tamaranim1 [39]
The effect was committing murder, enslaving may natives, and leading other Europeans to see how successful he was finding new land, along with having slaves, gold and what riches could be gained by trying to conquest some of the land for themselves.

5 0
3 years ago
Garibaldi's main tactic for unifying Italy was:
Pachacha [2.7K]
Third option is the answer
7 0
2 years ago
In the 1800s some Politicans wanted American Indians to adopt white culture the idea was called
Tresset [83]

This idea was called assimilation.

Hope this helps!

5 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What concept did John hus believe
    9·2 answers
  • Which list correctly orders the Yuan dynasty social classes from most powerful to least powerful?
    6·2 answers
  • What was the real catalyst to drive the states to unite?
    11·1 answer
  • 1)-what was the date of the march by gandhi's followers to the salt works of dharasana?
    14·1 answer
  • During the Bataan Death March:
    8·1 answer
  • William Penn’s concern for religious freedom is shown in the _____.
    7·2 answers
  • How is the entertainment of the 1930s different from entertainment today?
    13·1 answer
  • A) Briefly explain ONE factor that contributed to the lack of manufacturing in the South
    11·1 answer
  • How do Judaism, Christianity, and Islam establish unique identities in relation to one another or past cultures?
    5·2 answers
  • Which of the following statements is NOT true about the Grand Canyon?
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!