The North had many varying views, some wanted it abolished because of moral issues yet still saw them as inferior while others made money of of the south's cotton and opposed liberation. The south thought that by having them enslaved, they were helping them and that it was the will of God
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
Answer:
Hope this helps
Explanation:
One of the main arguments for public education is that, as individuals in a society become more knowledgeable, the entire population becomes more knowledgeable. As students socialize with each other and participate in team activities, they learn to work together and for the benefit of the group. This prepares them to work towards community goals. In a report prepared for the Education Law Center, the impact on society as a whole was referred to as the spillover effect. As individuals derived benefit from education, society did as well. One of the most compelling benefits that spills over to society is a reduced crime rate. There is substantial evidence that the relationship is causal. A particular study found that Caucasian men age 30-34 that did not finish high school was four times more likely to have been incarcerated than their graduated counterparts, according to the National Education Law Center.
Answer:
The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders. A few tribes went peacefully, but many resisted the relocation policy
Explanation: