Nathaniel Bacon helped the poor settlers who lived in the western part of the colony by leading Bacon's Rebellion, a rebellion against the colonial government in Virginia in 1676. Here are some ways he helped the poor settlers:
1. Defending their interests: Bacon and his followers were primarily motivated by the grievances of the poor settlers in the western part of the colony. They felt that the colonial government was not adequately protecting their interests and was favoring the wealthy elite. By leading the rebellion, Bacon aimed to address their concerns and fight for their rights.
2. Challenging the government: Bacon's Rebellion was a direct challenge to the authority of Governor William Berkeley and the colonial government. The rebellion sought to dismantle the oppressive policies and practices that were negatively impacting the poor settlers. It aimed to create a more equitable and just society where the concerns of the less privileged were taken into account.
3. Demanding reforms: One of the main goals of Bacon's Rebellion was to demand reforms in the colonial government. The rebels wanted better representation and an end to policies that favored the wealthy landowners. Through their actions, they sought to bring attention to the plight of the poor settlers and push for changes that would benefit them.
4. Redistributing power: The rebellion highlighted the power imbalance in the colony and emphasized the need for a more inclusive and fair distribution of power. While the rebellion ultimately failed, it served as a catalyst for future reforms and changes in the colonial government, which eventually led to a more representative and accountable system.
It is important to note that while Bacon's Rebellion had the intention of helping the poor settlers, it was also driven by other factors such as political rivalries and conflicts over Native American policies. Nonetheless, the rebellion brought attention to the concerns of the marginalized settlers and contributed to discussions and actions that aimed to address their needs.
Answer:
Explanation:
Congress proposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth revisions to the Constitution to address the issues of opportunity and citizenship, and required the approval of the initial two for readmission to the Union. Inside the main decade following approval, court cases emerged including people requesting their guaranteed social equality.
During the 1870s, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were interpreted by the Supreme Court in the political climate of Reconstruction.
During the 1870s, Supreme Court decisions restricted the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, option B is correct.
In order to address concerns of opportunity and citizenship, Congress offered the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments changes to the Constitution. The initial two amendments had to be approved before a state could be admitted back into the Union. In the first ten years after ratification, legal actions were taken by persons demanding their guaranteed equality in society.
The Fourteenth Amendment, which was approved by the Senate on June 8, 1866, and ratified two years later on July 9, 1868, gave citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States," including people who were once slaves. It also guaranteed all citizens "equal protection under the laws," extending the provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore, option B is the ideal selection.
Learn more about the Fourteenth Amendment here:
#SPJ6
Your question seems to be incomplete, but most probably the complete question was:
During the 1870s, Supreme Court decisions _____.
A. guaranteed African Americans protection from actions by other citizens B.restricted the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment
C. ruled that states had no power to define rights for their citizens
D. granted African Americans new freedoms at the state level
The Suez Canal was seized for independence and liberty of Egypt.
In 1956Suez crisis, Egypt was invaded by Britain along with France and Israel to regain control over the Suez Canal. Before the defeat, the Egyptians blocked the canal by sinking 40 ships in it.
President Nasser ordered the seizure of the canal and nationalized it, giving argument that these tolls would pay for the building up of the dam. So the seizure was done to protect its liberty and independence.
Therefore, option B aptly describes the above statement.
Learn more about the Suez Canal seizure here:
to protect its independence and liberty
Answer:
There were several reasons why the United States became interested in revitalizing contact between Japan and the West in the mid-19th century. First, the combination of the opening of Chinese ports to regular trade and the annexation of California, creating an American port on the Pacific, ensured that there would be a steady stream of maritime traffic between North America and Asia. Then, as American traders in the Pacific replaced sailing ships with steam ships, they needed to secure coaling stations, where they could stop to take on provisions and fuel while making the long trip from the United States to China. The combination of its advantageous geographic position and rumors that Japan held vast deposits of coal increased the appeal of establishing commercial and diplomatic contacts with the Japanese. Additionally, the American whaling industry had pushed into the North Pacific by the mid-18th century, and sought safe harbors, assistance in case of shipwrecks, and reliable supply stations. In the years leading up to the Perry mission, a number of American sailors found themselves shipwrecked and stranded on Japanese shores, and tales of their mistreatment at the hands of the unwelcoming Japanese spread through the merchant community and across the United States.
The Perry Expedition led directly to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and the western Great Powers, and eventually to the collapse of the ruling Tokugawa shogunate and the restoration of the Emperor
The answer is B. The Court encouraged the growth of businesses by freeing them from meddling state laws. He defended business by connecting them with the stockholders’ rights and protected the corporations the same way it protected individuals from government interference.