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
OlgaM077 [116]
3 years ago
10

What was the Union strategy that ultimately prevailed by the Spring of 1865?

History
1 answer:
Karolina [17]3 years ago
8 0

Answer: Anaconda plan, military strategy proposed by Union General Winfield Scott early in the American Civil War. The plan called for a naval blockade of the Confederate littoral, a thrust down the Mississippi, and the strangulation of the South by Union land and naval forces.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
During one hundred and fifty years we have builded up a form of self government and a social system which is peculiarly our own.
taurus [48]

Explanation:

Herbert Hoover was the 31st president of the United States. He served one term, from 1929 to 1933.

Before becoming president, Hoover directed relief efforts to supply war-torn Europe and Russia during and after the First World War.

After the 1929 stock market crash, the Hoover administration attempted to mitigate the negative effects of the Great Depression but was unable to significantly improve the economy.

4 0
4 years ago
Harry accepts franks offer to sell a used car for $2,000. at what point is there a binding contract
KonstantinChe [14]

It is said that an agreement becomes legally binding as soon as there is the meeting of minds. In this case, the contract existed when Harry accepted the offer of Frank. The acceptance signified that an offer was offered, they have set the terms and they agreed to these terms. If either of the two party breaks or the contract is breached, they can use the law to settle their disputes.

6 0
3 years ago
How did the Nullification Crisis reflect Andrew Jackson's policies? Jackson supported a strong central government to enforce fed
Mama L [17]
"<span>Jackson refused to support laws that would set up a national bank" is the best option here. Jackson was famously opposed to the creation of a national bank. </span>
6 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did tensions exist between the U.S. and Soviet Union at the conclusion of World War 2
AleksandrR [38]

Answer: The Soviet Union was liberating, they were taking the countries as puppets. The Soviet Union was getting stronger and stronger, while the US were liberating, not taking.

Explanation: I think it's self explanatory.

4 0
3 years ago
2. Were there difference in Americans responses to the Supreme Court decisions
Sedbober [7]

Answer:No

In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Arkansas could not pass legislation undermining the Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.

Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign. According to the decision rendered by Chief Justice John Marshall, this meant that Georgia had no rights to enforce state laws in its territory.

Cherokee Nations v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the U.S. state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokees were a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian," as said by Justice Marshall.

Explanation:

In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross (selected at the urging of Senators Daniel Webster and Theodore Frelinghuysen) and William Wirt, attorney general in the Monroe and Adams administrations, were selected to defend Cherokee rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cherokee Nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws that "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society." Georgia pushed hard to bring evidence that the Cherokee Nation couldn't sue as a "foreign" nation due to the fact that they did not have a constitution or a strong central government. Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.

The Court did hear the case but declined to rule on the merits. The Court determined that the framers of the Constitution did not really consider the Indian Tribes as foreign nations but more as "domestic dependent nation[s]" and consequently the Cherokee Nation lacked the standing to sue as a "foreign" nation. Chief Justice Marshall said; "The court has bestowed its best attention on this question, and, after mature deliberation, the majority is of the opinion that an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign state in the sense of the constitution, and cannot maintain an action in the courts of the United States." The Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee "in a proper case with proper parties".

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that "the relationship of the tribes to the United States resembles that of a 'ward to its guardian'." Justice William Johnson added that the "rules of nations" would regard "Indian tribes" as "nothing more than wandering hordes, held together only by ties of blood and habit, and having neither rules nor government beyond what is required in a savage state."

Justice Smith Thompson, in a dissenting judgment joined by Justice Joseph Story, held that the Cherokee nation was a "foreign state" in the sense that the Cherokee retained their "usages and customs and self-government" and the United States government had treated them as "competent to make a treaty or contract". The Court therefore had jurisdiction; Acts passed by the State of Georgia were "repugnant to the treaties with the Cherokees" and directly in violation of a congressional Act of 1802; and the injury to the Cherokee was severe enough to justify an injunction against the further execution of the state laws.[

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Compare the 2008 and 2012 turnouts by ethnicity. Next analyze what the comparisons of 2008 and 2012 mean in terms of the politic
    11·2 answers
  • What strengths did the Americans have during the revolutionary war
    14·2 answers
  • What forces drive a dictator?
    7·2 answers
  • What statement was in the early draft of the Declaration of Independence, but not in the final version ??
    5·2 answers
  • Question 3(Multiple Choice Worth 5 points)
    12·1 answer
  • American Revolution and the French Revolution
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements about the American revolution are true​
    11·1 answer
  • Why is it important to continue to study the Holocaust?
    14·1 answer
  • How did Britain and France respond when Hitler invaded Austria in 1938
    8·1 answer
  • Please help!!
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!