European colonists in the Caribbean built large ___________ plantations.a. sugarcane
c. rice
b. cotton
d. wheat

Answers

Answer 1
Answer:

Answer:

Option A.

Explanation:

Sugarcane, is the right answer.

An economy based on agricultural mass cultivation, generally of a few commodity yields raised on extensive farms are known as the plantations economy. Export of cash crop is the primary source of income in this type of economy and also the backbone of the economy. Accordingly, the European settlers in the Caribbean developed large Sugarcane plantations.

Answer 2
Answer: The answer is A) sugarcane

Related Questions

Who initiated the phrase "manifest destiny"?a. John Tylerb. John L. O'Sullivanc. James K. Polkd. William Henry Harrison
The Safavid Empire was geographically located between which empires?
What are some ways the American Revo|ution affected women?
A basic position in American foreign policy has been that America must defend foreign interests related to trade an security. The main foreign policy position opposed to this American policy is called
Under the reign of Phillip II in Spain, all of the following occurred EXCEPT:The Spanish Armada sent by Phillip II was successful in defeating the English, adding that nation to the Spanish Empire. The Netherlands broke free from the Spanish Empire in the 1500s. Shipments of gold and silver from the Americas helped Spain fund its battles. Phillip II ruled as an absolute monarch, believing he had the divine right.

2. Did any events preceding the South’s secession not contribute to the decision to secede?3.What current events are causing some states to talk about seceding from the Union again?
4.Do those current events compare in any way to the events in the 1800s? Explain your answer.

Answers

I think for number one their aren't any events that didn't help their was the civil war, slavery, and tariffs they all made the south want to secede from the north side states.For Number 3 it would likely be because of obama's Re-Election though its not as recent as this year but still.For number 4 in a sense I think they sort of do and dont at the same time. It is still about race but not about slavery, though the south was really jealous because they didn't want to let go of their slaves yet the north seemed to be prospering and their slaves where free. They had a problem with the president later down the road when lincoln was elected as they have a problem with obama being elected when he was first elected in 2008.  And the tariffs which are now considered taxes and business taxes are still a problem now. Nobody really likes the thought of having to pay for their business being good or not prospering.

Which method did martin luther king jr use to end racial segregation

Answers

Martin Luther King Jr. believed that the way to achieve racial equality was through doing non-violent protests and marches.

Which statement describes a cause of the French and Indian War? A. British troops threatened to invade Canada. B. Many colonists sided with the French over the issue of British taxes. C. French settlers claimed lands in North Carolina. D. The French and the English were in conflict over land and power.

Answers

A major cause of the French and Indian war was due to disagreements between the French and the British. They were fighting over land claims and the fur trade. Therefore the answer is D.
D.  The French and English were in conflict over land and power

Short Response: Explain in detail, using a minimum of three to five sentences: (A) What were Alexander Hamilton’s views regarding the idea of a strong central government? (B) What were Thomas Jefferson’s views on the idea of a strong central government?

Answers

Answer:

so here is answer

Explanation:

(A) Alexander Hamilton's Views on a Strong Central Government:

Alexander Hamilton was a staunch advocate for a strong central government. He believed in a powerful federal government as the key to establishing a stable and prosperous nation. Hamilton's views were influenced by his experiences during the American Revolution and his observations of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. He argued for a strong executive branch, a national bank, and a robust financial system. Hamilton believed that a strong federal government was necessary to maintain order, secure the nation's credit, and promote economic development. His vision included a broad interpretation of the Constitution's implied powers, which would allow the federal government to take on various responsibilities beyond those explicitly mentioned in the document.

(B) Thomas Jefferson's Views on a Strong Central Government:

Thomas Jefferson held a contrasting view on the role of the federal government. He was a proponent of limited government and believed that power should primarily reside with the states and individual citizens. Jefferson was concerned that a strong central government could potentially infringe upon individual liberties. He favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, believing that the federal government should only exercise powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. Jefferson was skeptical of institutions like a national bank and a standing army, fearing they could concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He championed agrarianism and the idea of an agrarian republic where individual farmers had a prominent role, emphasizing local governance and states' rights as a means to protect individual freedoms.

In summary, Alexander Hamilton advocated for a strong federal government with broad powers to ensure economic stability and order, while Thomas Jefferson favored a limited central government with power decentralized to the states and individuals to safeguard individual liberties and prevent potential tyranny. These differing views played a significant role in shaping early American political debates and contributed to the development of the two-party system.

To vote a ______ ticket requires a knowledge of the qualifications of every candidate

Answers

Correct answer: SPLIT TICKET

A "split ticket" is when a person casts votes for candidates from different political parties for different positions up for election. For instance, the voter may support a presidential candidate who is a Republican but casts ballots for congressional candidates who are Democrats Voting a split ticket requires a knowledge of the qualifications of each candidate because you are voting according to each candidate's qualities and credentials, not just because of the political party backing the candidate.

The opposite of a "split ticket" is a "straight ticket" or "straight-party voting." This means a voter selects all candidates for all offices on the ballot according to the political party they represent. So, a solidly Republican voter might cast a straight ticket for all Republican candidates, or a committed Democrat might do straight-party voting for all Democrat candidates on the ballot. In this case, the voter is supporting a particular party's ideology, and thus siding with any and all candidates from that party.

I would argue that whether you vote split ticket or straight ticket, as a voter you really should know the qualifications of each candidate for whom you cast your ballot. If a candidate belongs to the political party that you generally support, does that mean you still support that candidate even if he or she has minimal qualifications to serve in the office they seek? Or if the candidate's record is marred by scandal or questionable performance?

A split ticket vote assumes you are judging each candidate on that candidate's individual merits. But even if voters opt for a straight ticket approach, knowledge about individual candidates' qualifications still matters.

To vote a split ticket requires a knowledge of the qualifications of every candidate.

The split-ticket voting necessitates knowledge of a candidate's qualifications as the voters shall choose according to the various positions that the candidates are contesting for. This is required when multiple candidates are required to be elected for multiple posts. Political loyalty assumes a secondary position to the actual qualifications of the candidates. During elections, there are different positions in which candidates of multiple parties can contest for different positions. for required to choose all candidates from the same party. For example, in the Presidential Elections, a voter gets to choose between a Republican and Democratic candidate, and it does not necessarily mean that a voter’s political affiliations have to Knowledge in their choice made.  

 

Further Explanation:

Knowledge of the credentials and accomplishments of the candidates makes it easier for the voters to make a fully informed choice on the basis of an assessment of whether the candidate possesses skills that shall be required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the position with which he is entrusted, the candidate. The concept of a split ticket is essential to have a heterogeneous representation in the Government, and all citizens get representation. However, a voter with a strong political affiliation will choose all candidates from a single political party, to ensure a clear majority. This shows that the voters have lined themselves along with the party ideology, and thus they use it as a primary parameter in choosing their representatives. However, in my opinion, voting through a straight ticket sometimes defeats the purpose of a conscious choice on the part of the voters. Therefore it is very important that even during voting through a straight ticket, a voter should be aware of all the necessary qualifications of the candidates.

Learn more:

1. When the united states decided to build a canal across central america, panama was

brainly.com/question/1263215

2. According to the constitution, the judicial branch of the federal government is headed by

brainly.com/question/10065176

Answer Details:

Grade: High School

Chapter: The U.S. Political System

Subject: Political Science

Keywords:

Voters, representation, candidates of different political parties, homogeneity, heterogeneous composition, party ideology.

Document 2…And what were these “own lives” of theirs [women] to be like? Well, for one thing, they could
take jobs. Up to this time girls of the middle classes who had wanted to “do something” had been
largely restricted to school-teaching, social-service work, nursing, stenography, and clerical work
in business houses. But now they poured out of the schools and colleges into all manner of new
occupations. They besieged the offices of publishers and advertisers; they went into tea-room
management until there threatened to be more purveyors [sellers] than consumers of chicken
patties and cinnamon toast; they sold antiques, sold real estate, opened smart little shops, and
finally invaded the department stores. In 1920 the department store was in the mind of the
average college girl a rather bourgeois [middle class] institution which employed “poor shop
girls”; by the end of the decade college girls were standing in line for openings in the misses’
sports-wear department and even selling behind the counter in the hope that some day fortune
might smile upon them and make them buyers or stylists. Small-town girls who once would have
been contented to stay in Sauk Center [Minnesota] all their days were now borrowing from
father to go to New York or Chicago to seek their fortunes — in Best’s or Macy’s or Marshall
Field’s. Married women who were encumbered [burdened] with children and could not seek
jobs consoled themselves with the thought that home-making and child-rearing were really
“professions,” after all. No topic was so furiously discussed at luncheon tables from one end of
the country to the other as the question whether the married woman should take a job, and
whether the mother had a right to. And as for the unmarried woman, she no longer had to
explain why she worked in a shop or an office; it was idleness, nowadays, that had to be defended.…
Source: Frederick Lewis Allen, Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 192os,
Harper & Row, 1931
According to Frederick Lewis Allen, what is one way middle-class women’s lives changed in the 192os?

Answers

According to Frederick Lewis Allen, one way middle-class women’s lives changed in the 1920s was in that they more jobs popped up for some of the women out of the home.