Answer:
Why were the Articles of Confederation so weak?
- the colonists feared a government that would be too much like the British king
Define an Indentured Servant
- a person who signed a 7 year contract to work for someone in order to come to the colonies
Explanation:
1. Why were the Articles of Confederation so weak?
After finally getting rid of the British, the colonists feared a powerful government that would have a choke hold over the colonies. The Government in the AoC had no power to inforce laws, collect taxes, no courts, there needed to be unanimous votes, etc.
2. Define an Indentured Servant
An indentured servan is a person who signs indentures to work for another for a specified time in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.
New slaves from Africa were imported in Southern plantations.
Answer:
This question is incorrect, the correct question should be
What were some ways that Northerners defied the Fugitive Slave Act?
Explanation:
The Fugitive Slave act was Part of the Compromise of 1850 . That anyone that helped a fugitive could either be fined or imprisoned. Though Some Northerners resisted, declined and refused to obey the new law.
Henry David Thoreau in his essay of 1849 titled "Civil Disobedience," wrote that if the law "requires you to be the agent and cause of injustice to another, then I say, break the law."
The Northerner juries declined to convict people who were accused of breaking this new law.
People gave out money to buy freedom for the enslaved people, and the Freed African Americans and whites formed a network, or an interconnected system, called the "Underground Railroad" which is intended to help runaways to find their way to freedom.
Later in 1953, Democrat Franklin Pierce became the president and he intended to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act upon assuming office
Answer:
They would grow squash, maize, and other vegetables. The men would hunt small game such as rabbits for the tribe to eat.
Explanation:
Answer:
In that case, the Court ruled that the 1923 Texas state law was unconstitutional, because it allowed the state Democratic Party to racially discriminate. After the case, most Southern states ended their selectively inclusive white primaries.
