To give citizens direct input to the government
A person who studies, describes, and explains the past is called a historian.
Answer:
<em>Analyzing Historical sources and evidence </em>
<em>Making historical connections </em>
<em>Chronological reasoning </em>
<em>And also creating and supporting historical argument</em>
Hope this helps you (:
Answer:
TRUE
Explanation:
Abraham Lincoln was considered as one the greatest Presidents America had ever had. He was the 16th President that served the nation. He wanted to put an end to the slavery system in the USA permanently. He helped to put an end to slavery in America. He achieved this by passing the 13th Amendment by pushing and convincing the Congress before the Civil war ends.
Lincoln called for the individual congressmen to met them trying to convince them to vote for the amendment in the house. He acted friendly and politely to them. He also asked his allies to convince their colleagues in the house. Lincoln even offered the Congressmen some high paying jobs in the government upon their retirement from the house or jobs for their families and friends. Thus Lincoln succeeded in passing the 13th amendment to the constitution in the house which puts an end to the slavery in America.
Answer:
Gideon was accused of a crime and brought to trial.
Gideon was denied counsel at the state court.
Gideon appealed the state decision to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court heard Gideon's case and decided in his favor.
States became required to provide counsel to all defendants.
Explanation:
The ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright of 1963 was the ruling by which the Supreme Court guaranteed the right to defense in trial for all defendants who could not provide a private attorney, in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Amendment.
In the case, Mr. Gideon was charged with a misdemeanor and taken to the local court, where he was denied the right to a free lawyer because the charge did not fall on a capital crime, with which the accused had to defend himself alone and lost the case.
Subsequently, through appeals, the case reached the Supreme Court, which understood that the right to legal advice established in the Sixth Amendment did not distinguish regarding the seriousness of the crimes.
