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
sweet-ann [11.9K]
3 years ago
8

what had been causing Benjamin Franklin troubles for far too long and he decided he had to do something about it?

History
1 answer:
harkovskaia [24]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

His marriage was not joyful from the beginning, by contrasts in insight and aspiration with his wife and by its accentuation on practicality over affection or love; Franklin was a virtuoso and required independence from ordinary imperatives.

Explanation:

Franklin was an incredible man researcher, publisher, political theorist, diplomat. However, we can't comprehend him completely without thinking about why he treated his wife so pitifully toward the finish of her life. The appropriate response isn't basic. However, a nearby perusing of Franklin's letters and distributed works, and a reconsideration of occasions encompassing his marriage, proposes another and frightfully thunderous clarification. It includes their solitary child's deadly sickness and a contradiction over vaccination.

You might be interested in
How were the events in the 19th century crucial to the formation of Rizal's love for his country?
sweet [91]

Answer:

The events that took place in the century showed how disadvantageous it was for Filipinos to live under European domination and how big the country could be if it achieved independence and self-control. This generated a strong sense of nationalism and patriotism in Rizal and his countrymen.

Explanation:

In the 19th century Rizal was able to see how productive his country was, how charitable and hardworking his people were and how large and self-sufficient the nation could be. However, the country was exploited by European nations, by an inefficient government that diminished and limited the rights and freedoms of the people. This generated a feeling of nationalism, a patriotism that led him to fight for his land and promote the happiness and dominance of his nation.

5 0
3 years ago
Which of the following World War II events happened last?
In-s [12.5K]
United States bombing Nagasaki
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the Hun invasions affect the Western Roman Empire?
mixas84 [53]

Answer:

I think A

Explanation:

I took the test

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did the Constitution allow Slavery?<br><br> Please answer ASAP!!!
mars1129 [50]

Question- Why did the Constitution allow Slavery?

Answer- On Monday, Senator Bernie Sanders told his audience at Liberty University that the United States “in many ways was created” as a nation “from way back on racist principles.” Not everyone agreed. The historian Sean Wilentz took to The New York Times to write that Bernie Sanders—and a lot of his colleagues—have it all wrong about the founding of the United States. The Constitution that protected slavery for three generations, until a devastating war and a constitutional amendment changed the game, was actually antislavery because it didn’t explicitly recognize “property in humans.” Lincoln certainly said so, and cited the same passage from Madison’s notes that Wilentz used. But does that make it so? And does it gainsay Sanders’s inelegant but apparently necessary voicing of what ought to be obvious, what David Brion Davis, Wilentz’s scholarly mentor and my own, wrote back in 1966—that the nation was “in many ways” founded on racial slavery? If the absence of an ironclad guarantee of a right to property in men really “quashed” the slaveholders, it should be apparent in the rest of the document, by which the nation was actually governed. But of the 11 clauses in the Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10 protect slave property and the powers of masters. Only one, the international slave-trade clause, points to a possible future power by which, after 20 years, slavery might be curtailed—and it didn’t work out that way at all. The three-fifths clause, which states that three-fifths of “all other persons” (i.e. slaves) will be counted for both taxation and representation, was a major boon to the slave states. This is well known; it’s astounding to see Wilentz try to pooh-pooh it. No, it wasn’t counting five-fifths, but counting 60 percent of slaves added enormously to slave-state power in the formative years of the republic. By 1800, northern critics called this phenomenon “the slave power” and called for its repeal. With the aid of the second article of the Constitution, which numbered presidential electors by adding the number of representatives in the House to the number of senators, the three-fifths clause enabled the elections of plantation masters Jefferson in 1800 and Polk in 1844. Just as importantly, the tax liability for three-fifths of the slaves turned out to mean nothing. Sure the federal government could pass a head tax, but it almost never did. It hardly could when the taxes had to emerge from the House, where the South was 60 percent overrepresented. So the South gained political power, without having to surrender much of anything in exchange. Indeed, all the powers delegated to the House—that is, the most democratic aspects of the Constitution—were disproportionately affected by what critics quickly came to call “slave representation.” These included the commerce clause—a compromise measure that gave the federal government power to regulate commerce, but only at the price of giving disproportionate power to slave states. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congress was forbidden from passing export duties—at a time when most of the value of what the U.S. exported lay in slave-grown commodities. This was one of the few things (in addition to regulating the slave trade for 20 years) that Congress was forbidden to do. Slavery and democracy in the U.S. were joined at the 60-percent-replaced hip. Another clause in Article I allowed Congress to mobilize “the Militia” to “suppress insurrections”—again, the House with its disproportionate votes would decide whether a slave rebellion counted as an insurrection. Wilentz repeats the old saw that with the rise of the northwest, the slave power’s real bastion was the Senate. Hence the battles over the admission of slave and free states that punctuated the path to Civil War. But this reads history backwards from the 1850s, not forward from 1787.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why typhoid is endemic in Southeast Asia?
Diano4ka-milaya [45]

Answer:

Many people did not have access to clean water.

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did Australia and New Zealand sign the ANZUS pact with the us
    7·1 answer
  • which statement best describes why king Arthur is a heroic figure in morte D'arthur by sir thomas malory?
    7·2 answers
  • What were some tactics used to decrease the number of Nazi U-boat (submarine) attacks off the North Carolina coast?
    5·1 answer
  • Why was it necessary for early humans to move from one location to another?
    12·2 answers
  • Which event is the CLEAREST example of conflict between state and national governments?
    11·2 answers
  • How do I ise historical skills to solve problems or answer questions about events in american lives?
    13·1 answer
  • After reading the account of how hot air balloons were used in the Battle of San Juan Hill, how do you think the information the
    11·1 answer
  • Can you help please its about sneeches the dr susse story
    14·1 answer
  • Do you know this for social studies
    10·2 answers
  • Select all that apply.
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!