All categories

3 years ago

What was the main cause for the end of reconsturction

History

1 answer:

Elina [12.6K]3 years ago

6 0

Answer:

<h2> The Compromise of 1876</h2>

Explanation:

The End of Reconstruction: The Compromise of 1876 effectively ended the Reconstruction era. Southern Democrats’ promises to protect civil and political rights of blacks were not kept, and the end of federal interference in southern affairs led to widespread disenfranchisement of blacks voters.

Hope this helps :}

Pls mark brainliest :P

And have an amazing day <3

You might be interested in

could somebody please answer one of the questions? I would be very thankful if someone would answer all of them :D..

olganol [36]

Right: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment #: 1

Right: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment #: 3

Right: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment #: 8

Right: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment #: 4

not sure about #5

Amendment #: 1

6 0

3 years ago

What allowed Rome's Economy to boom?

taurus [48]

Answer:

griculture and trade dominated Roman economic fortunes, only supplemented by small scale industrial production.

Explanation:

3 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What problems arose among the pharisees in regulating the sabbath observance?

Maslowich

The Pharisees' legalistic approach led them to creating an ever-more complex system of rules, and their extra-dutiful observance of law focused on external obedience to rules more than internal attitudes of the heart.

Jewish rabbinical tradition counted 613 commands stipulated in the Law given to Israel by Moses. For the Pharisees (meaning "those who are set apart"), that wasn't enough. They sought to set themselves apart from the common man by the way they applied the Law to every detail of their lives, making their own specific rules for specific situations. So as new situations arose, new religious rules were imposed. The Pharisees' body of law was something like the US tax code in that way! They gave particular focus to all the ways that one should obey the rule of resting on the Sabbath.

In the process, the Pharisees also paid primary attention to outward adherence to rules. The spirit of the Law as originally given was aimed at conforming persons' hearts to the ways of God. But following the laws of the Pharisees became more focused on maintaining outward consistency with the rituals and regulations they had established. In regard to the Sabbath, the original intent was so that people would stop other activities in order to give full attention to God and his Word. For the Pharisees, the focus of the Sabbath became more about regulating how much activity was considered allowable or not in different situations.

3 0

3 years ago

Explain the principle of checks and balances as it relates to the power of the president. Provide one example to support your ex

Scrat [10]

Checks and Balances was designed to keep each branch from assuming too much power. Presidential power is checked and balanced in many ways. While he can veto various bills and keep them from becoming laws, he can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in both houses. SO if the Congress feels like the President is over stepping his bounds then they can in turn overrule him. The Supreme Court is also in the mix in that if they deem a law to be unconstitutional then they can rule it so and the law is no more. Presidents can influence Supreme Courts by whom they nominate for open positions (or in the case of one President, attempt to add more judges to the Court). However, after the nomination is made and the Senate approves and confirms them then they are free. The only way a Judge can be removed is they are found to be doing something illegal, deemed incompetent and unable to continue doing their job, resign, or die. This allows judges to "operate outside the realm of politics." The idea is that they can focus and not worry about politics and we can assume that decisions will be made free from political influences and bribery.

6 0

4 years ago

Name the u.s. president who, in 1959, proclaimed hawaii as the 50th state.

jarptica [38.1K]

Dwight D. Eisenhower

hope this helps :)

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers