Answer:
a trader who does not hedge, but who trades with the objective of achieving profits through the successful anticipation of price movements
Explanation:
hope this helps !
Answer:
America entered World War I on account of sympathy.
The election took place during the time of the Mexican Revolution and World War I.
Although officially neutral in the European conflict, public opinion in the United States leaned towards the Allied forces headed by Great Britain and France against the German Empire and Austria-Hungary, due in large measure to the harsh treatment of civilians by the German Army in Belgium and northern France and the militaristic character of the German and Austrian monarchies, but in spite of their sympathy with the Allied forces most American voters wanted to avoid involvement in the war and preferred to continue a policy of neutrality
Hope this helps
Explanation:
Rice cultivation is introduced into Carolina. Slave importation increases dramatically. The Royal African Trade Company loses its monopoly and New England colonists enter the slave trade.
Answer:
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[2][3] The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Defence of member nations
