B. women. usually didn’t go to school but taught their children
Answer: B. Americans could not speak out for one side or the other
Explanation:
Congressional proponents of neutrality legislation sought to prevent similar mistakes. The 1935 act banned munitions exports to belligerents and restricted American travel on belligerent ships. The 1936 act banned loans to belligerents. The 1937 act extended these provisions to civil wars and gave the president discretionary authority to restrict nonmunitions sales to a “cash‐and‐carry” basis (belligerents had to pay in advance then export goods in their own ships).
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 established the latitude 36°30′ as the northern limit for slavery to be legal in the territories of the west.
Explanation:
- The Missouri Compromise, as it was known, would remain in impact for just over 30 years till the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 revoked it.
- In 1857, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott's case found the agreement unconstitutional, setting the stage for the nation's final journey through the Civil War.
- In 1820, while growing sectional tensions over the slavery issue, the U.S. Congress passed a law welcoming Missouri to the Union as a captive state and free state.
Answer:
In the first phase, clearance resulted from agricultural improvement, driven by the need for landlords to increase their income (many landlords had crippling debts, with bankruptcy playing a large part in the history). This involved the enclosure of the open fields managed on the run rig system and the shared grazing. Especially in the North and West of the region, these were usually replaced with large-scale pastoral farms stocked with sheep, on which much higher rents were paid, with the displaced tenants getting alternative tenancies in newly created crofting communities, where they were expected to be employed in industries such as fishing, quarrying or the kelp industry. The reduction in status from farmer to crofter was one of the causes of resentment from these changes.
Explanation:
he eviction of tenants went against dùthchas, the principle that clan members had an inalienable right to rent land in the clan territory. This was never recognised in Scottish law. It was gradually abandoned by clan chiefs as they began to think of themselves simply as commercial landlords, rather than as patriarchs of their people—a process that arguably started with the Statutes of Iona of 1609. The clan members continued to rely on dùthchas. This different viewpoint was an inevitable source of grievance.35–36, 39, 60, 300 The actions of landlords varied. Some did try to delay or limit evictions, often to their financial cost. The Countess of Sutherland genuinely believed her plans were advantageous for those resettled in crofting communities and could not understand why tenants complained. A few landlords displayed complete lack of concern for evicted tenants.
B, based on my knowledge of the root of the word.
