Some of the arguments used to support US expansion and manifest destiny were: European examples, new markets and access to vast natural resources. Because of the US massive industrial expansion and production, US industries needed new markets to sell their goods to and they need access to more natural resources to ensure the continued production. The US expanded its inluences into Alaska, the Pacific (Hawaii, Samoa, Guam, and the Philippines), Latin America and Asia (China and Japan)
Answer:
extend
Explanation:
Polk's goal was to spread the United States across the North American continent from the Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean. His goal was to secure the territories of <u>New Mexico </u>and <u>California</u>, which allowed him to extend the United States to the Pacific Ocean.
Answer: It encouraged the U.S. to desegregate, because the Soviets claimed they supported equality for all people.
Explanation:
The United States kept claiming to be the beacon of democracy and equality around the world yet she was segregating against members of her own citizenry by keeping black people against from white people.
The Soviet Union always seized upon this to show the world that the U.S. was not actually equal and that the Soviet Union was more equal than the U.S. This was during the time of the Cold War and the U.S. did not like the fact that the Soviets held the moral high ground and so actively tried to end segregation.
Following the Supreme Court's decision on the AAA and NPR as unconstitutional, FDR attempted to add 2 more seats to the Supreme Court. Being there is no set number in the Constitution, FDR believed he had the right to add 2 more justices. Consequently, the additional seats would have gone to Democrats in favor of the New Deal legislation therefore overturning the blocks put into place. It was overwhelming viewed as an authoritarian move and criticize from all branches and both political parties. Being FDR would have to work within the system, he rewrote his New Deal policies to fit the standard of the Constitution and worked around the system to get his policies in place.
Before embarking on the series of court cases that argued for his freedom, Scott’s life was the rootless existence typical of many slaves. Born around 1799 in Virginia, he moved with his owner Peter Blow to Alabama and eventually to St. Louis, where he was sold to U.S. Army Dr. John Emerson in the early 1830s.
Like many antebellum officers, Emerson was transferred from post to post through Western states and territories. During those journeys, Scott married a slave woman named Harriet Robinson in 1836. When Emerson died in 1843, Scott, by then the father of two children, likely hoped the doctor’s will would manumit him—and his family—but it did not. Scott then offered Emerson’s brother-in-law and executor, J.A. Sanford, $300 hoping to buy his own freedom. But the offer was turned down. Scott decided to take the matter to the courts.
By 1846, Scott was living in St. Louis in service to Emerson’s widow. He filed suit with the state of Missouri, claiming that since he had lived with Emerson in Illinois—where slavery was outlawed by the 1787 Northwest Ordinance—and Fort Snelling in Minnesota—where the Missouri Compromise outlawed slavery in 1820—he was entitled to his freedom. In an interesting twist, the children of Peter Blow, Scott’s first owner, provided the slave family financial assistance.
