Answer:
Cabinet
Explanation:
The personal experience with slavery would allow for true stories of the experience rather than philosophical or moral arguments.
People would be more likely to believe a person’s first-hand accounts of abuses.
A former slave taking up such a cause could prove to people that free slaves could be capable citizens.
A former slave could make a more persuasive messenger for abolition than a person who was never enslaved by appealing to the audience's emotions, to a former slave it would be easier to awake the empaty of the audience because he will transmit the accurate feelings that would appeal to the audience's fears, desires, etc.
Another way to make a former slave a more persuasive messenger for abolition is to present the evidence that demonstrates he was a slave and to use his anecdotes to convey a touching message.
nuclear testing for new atomic bombs
c.
job training for unemployed citizens
b.
military expansion and new bases
d.
aircraft testing for new stealth fighters
Answer:
Job training for unemployed citizens
Explanation:
This was passed during the great depression, when the US was suffering a great economic depression because the stock market crashed. Inflation sky rocketed, unemployment also skyrocketed, etc. This is also the only logical conclusion because nuclear testing for atomic bombs wouldnt be held publicly but would be kept a secret from the people, and stealth fighters werent created till much later.
Answer:
C. job training for unemployed citizens
May I have brainliest please? :)
His opponent, Thomas Dewey, was a decorated war hero.
B.
The Democratic Party had split and polls predicted that Truman would lose.
C.
Truman refused to take the election seriously and campaigned very little.
D.
Many Southern Democrats disliked Truman and went over to the Republican Party.
The correct answer is B) "The Democratic Party had split and polls predicted that Truman would lose."
People thought that Truman would lose the 1948 election because the Democratic Party had split and polls predicted that Truman would lose.
After the 1948 Democratic Convention, held in Philadelphia in the month of July, the party nominated Harry S. Truman as its candidate to the presidency. Let's remember that Truman was already the President after the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
So when the party nominated Truman, the Democratic party split when some southern delegates left the place and forme the Dixiecrats, a third political party. That is why people thought that Truman would lose the 1948 election.
The people thought Truman would lose the 1948 election as The Democratic Party had split and polls predicted that Truman would lose.
Further Explanations:
Harry S. Truman was the 33rd United States’ President. He was initially appointed as the Vice President during the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. He assisted in the post for 82 days and just after the demise of Roosevelt, he was appointed as the President. Turman is ranked amongst the top-tiered President as by all measures he was a brilliant decision-maker
Turman was a devotee of the Democratic Party ,and he occupied the post of Presidency after Roosevelt in 1945 as the representative of the Democratic Party. During the general election of 1948, it was assumed that Turman would lose the poll because of the split in the Democratic party. In the Democratic Convention of Philadelphia , Turman was chosen as the presidential candidate for the upcoming election as he was already holding the post . His candidature was opposed by some Southern delegates and for that reason, they parted and formed a Third-party , Dixiecrats .
Learn more
Answer Details
Grade: High School
Subject: History
Chapter: Harry S. Truman
Keywords:
Harry S. Truman , United States, President, Vice President, Franklin Roosevelt, Turman,Democratic Party, Roosevelt, general election, Democratic Convention, Philadelphia, Southern delegates, Third-party, Dixiecrats
A) The ruling determined that Congress could act against the president if it wished.
B) The ruling determined that the Supreme Court was more powerful than the president.
C) The ruling determined that laws that violated the U.S. Constitution could be thrown out.
D) The ruling determined that presidents could not remove judges appointed by their predecessor.
Answer:
The correct answer is C. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison determined that laws that violated the U.S. Constitution could be thrown out.
Explanation:
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial case resolved by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1803. It arose as a result of a political dispute following the presidential elections of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson, who was a Democratic Republican, defeated then-President John Adams, who was a federalist. In the last days of the outgoing government of Adams, the Congress, dominated by the federalists, established a series of judicial positions, among them 42 justices the of peace for the District of Columbia. The Senate confirmed the appointments, the president signed them and the Secretary of State was in charge of sealing and delivering the appointment documents. In the last-minute hustle and bustle, the outgoing secretary of state did not deliver the minutes of appointment to four justices of the peace, including William Marbury.
The new secretary of state under President Jefferson, James Madison, refused to deliver the minutes of appointment as the new government was irritated by the maneuver of the federalists of trying to secure control of the judiciary with the appointment of members of their party just before ceasing in government. However, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court to order Madison to deliver his record.
If the Court ruled in favor of Marbury, Madison could still refuse to deliver the record and the Supreme Court would have no way to enforce the order. If the Court ruled against Marbury, it risked submitting the judiciary to Jefferson's supporters by allowing them to deny Marbury the position he could legally claim. Chief Justice John Marshall resolved this dilemma by deciding that the Supreme Court was not empowered to settle this case. Marshall ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act, which granted the Court these powers, was unconstitutional because it extended the original jurisdiction of the Court to the jurisdiction defined by the Constitution itself. Having decided not to intervene in this particular case, the Supreme Court secured its position as final arbiter of the law.
British forts would be built in American towns.
The colonists must give a quarter of their money to pay for British soldiers.
The colonists must provide living quarters for British soldiers.
Never mind i figured it out but feel free to say something for 10 points
Answer:
c
Explanation:
Quartering Act is a name given to two or more Acts of British Parliament requiring local governments of the American colonies to provide the British soldiers with housing and food. Each of the Quartering Acts was an amendment to the Mutiny Act and required annual renewal by Parliament.[1] They were originally intended as a response to issues that arose during the French and Indian War and soon became a source of tensions between the inhabitants of the Thirteen Colonies and the government in London, England. These tensions would later lead toward the American Revolution.General Thomas Gage, commander-in-chief of forces in British North America, and other British officers who had fought in the French and Indian War (including Major James Robertson), had found it hard to persuade colonial assemblies to pay for quartering and provisioning of troops on the march. Therefore, he asked Parliament to do something. Most colonies had supplied provisions during the war, but the issue was disputed in peacetime. The Province of New York was their headquarters, because the assembly had passed an Act to provide for the quartering of British regulars, but it expired on January 2, 1764,[2] The result was the Quartering Act 1765, which went far beyond what Gage had requested. No standing army had been kept in the colonies before the French and Indian War, so the colonies asked why a standing army was needed after the French had been defeated in battle.
This first Quartering Act[3] was given Royal Assent on May 15, 1765,[4] and provided that Great Britain would house its soldiers in American barracks and public houses, as by the Mutiny Act 1765, but if its soldiers outnumbered the housing available, would quarter them in "inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualing houses, and the houses of sellers of wine and houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cider or metheglin", and if numbers required in "uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings." Colonial authorities were required to pay the cost of housing and feeding these soldiers.
When 1,500 British troops arrived at New York City in 1766 the New York Provincial Assembly refused to comply with the Quartering Act and did not supply billeting for the troops. The troops had to remain on their ships. With its great impact on the city, a skirmish occurred in which one colonist was wounded following the Assembly's refusal to provide quartering. For failure to comply with the Quartering Act, Parliament suspended the Province of New York's Governor and legislature in 1767 and 1769, but never carried it out, since the Assembly soon agreed to contribute money toward the quartering of troops;[5] the New York Assembly allocated funds for the quartering of British troops in 1771. The Quartering Act was circumvented in all colonies other than Pennsylvania.
This act expired on March 24, 1776..
Answer:
i think it is c
Explanation:
A. It has caused spending by interest groups to decrease
B. It has caused spending by interest groups to increase
C. It has caused some interest groups to decrease spending and others to increase spending
D. It has had no impact on spending by interest groups
The correct answer is letter B. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled against the government restriction of independent expedintures for communications by corporations. It has impacted campaign spending because it allowed corporations to fund materials that favor or oppose a candidate, causing an increasement in such spending.
Answer:
B. It has caused spending by interest groups to increase
Explanation: