Answer:
See below.
Explanation:
a. Elizabeth Cady Stanton organized the Seneca Falls meeting for women's rights in 1848, which is considered to be the birthplace of the women's suffrage movement.
b. Stanton served as the president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) from 1890 to 1892 and played a vital role in the organization's efforts to secure voting rights for women.
c. While Stanton did not create the National Women's Party, she was an early supporter of the organization and played an instrumental role in advancing its agenda of equal rights for women.
d. Stanton started a feminist newspaper called The Revolution in 1868, which advocated for women's rights and social reform. The newspaper played a crucial role in shaping public opinion and rallying support for the women's suffrage movement.
Answer:
She organized the Seneca Falls meeting for women's rights
Explanation: I took the test.
What is yellow journalism?
A) Articles written based on the author’s opinion.
B) Articles written by authors known for exaggerating the facts, often not providing any evidence for their claims.
C) Articles written to slander people in the press.
D) Articles written by authors known for reporting facts and providing evidence for claims.
Answer:
B) Articles written by authors known for exaggerating the facts, often not providing any evidence for their claims.
B) Articles written by authors known for exaggerating the facts, often not providing any evidence for their claims.
Yellow journalism refers to a style of journalism that is characterized by sensationalism, exaggeration, and often unethical practices such as the use of misleading headlines, fake news, and false information. It is typically associated with the late 19th and early 20th centuries when newspapers competed with each other to attract readership through sensational stories, often involving crime, scandal, and gossip.
Option B is the closest to the definition of yellow journalism, as it emphasizes the use of exaggerated and unsupported claims. Option A may describe opinion journalism, while options C and D are not accurate descriptions of yellow journalism.
Judges in federal appellatecourts determine whether
The task of the appellate court is to determine whether or not the law was correctly applied in the trial court. Appeals courts have three judges and no jury.
In India, what exactly is an appeal court?
The ability of a court to hear/review a case decided by a lower court is referred to as appellate jurisdiction. Both the Supreme Court and the High Courts have appellate jurisdiction in India. They have the authority to reverse or uphold lower court rulings. The first appeal is made to an officer designated by the public authority as the First Appellate Authority within the public authority itself. The CPIO has less authority than the First Appellate Authority. The Central Information Commission will consider the second appeal.
To know more about judges visit:-
https://brainly.com/question/1078357
#SPJ9
4. What was the purpose of terror created by both Stalin and Mao in their respective
countries?
A. To get rid of opposition their own power, and quickly put in place communist
goals
B. To crush that last bit of capitalist influence in their countries
C. Terror was not used, and instead was propaganda created by the United States
D. Terror was used to end rebellions that often occurred in response to early
Communist policies.
Answer:
A. To get rid of opposition their own power, and quickly put in place communist
goals
Explanation:
The purpose of terror created by both Stalin and Mao in their respective countries was to get rid of opposition to their own power and quickly put in place communist goals. They used terror to eliminate anyone who was seen as a threat to their rule or disagreed with their policies. This included not only political opponents, but also innocent civilians who were suspected of being disloyal or were deemed to be counter-revolutionary. The use of terror was a key tool in maintaining control and suppressing dissent in both the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao.
Answer:
the answer you're looking for is a
Which event is often considered the beginning of the modern-day conflict between Israelis and Palestinians
Answer:
Many like to say the strife began with the extraordinary 1967 Six-Day War, and Israel’s conquest of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.
Explanation:
which type of evidence mostly likely include a testimonial
Answer: Testimonial evidence is a statement made under oath.
Explanation:
An example would be a witness pointing to someone in the courtroom and saying, “That's the guy I saw robbing the grocery store.” This is also called direct evidence or prima facie evidence.
John Brown’s Address
JUST THREE QUESTION THIS IS JUST THE INFORMATION PLS HURRY DUE TOMARROW
To the Virginia Court, when about to receive the sentence of
death for his heroic attempt at Harper’s Ferry, to give
deliverance to the captives, and to let the oppressed go free.
[Mr. Brown, upon inquiry whether he had anything to say why
sentence should not be pronounced upon him, in a clear, distinct
voice replied:]
I have, may it please the Court, a few words to say.
In the first place, I deny everything but what I have already
admitted, of a design on my part to free slaves. I intended,
certainly, to have made a clean thing of that matter, as I did last
winter when I went into Missouri, and there took Slaves without
the snapping of a gun on either side, moving them through the
country, and finally leaving them in Canada. I designed to have
done the same thing again on a larger scale. That was all I
intended. I never did intend murder, or treason, or the
destruction of property, or to excite or incite Slaves to rebellion,
or to make insurrection.
I have another objection, and that is that it is unjust that I
should suffer such a penalty. Had I interfered in the manner,
and which I admit has been fairly proved, -- for I admire the
truthfulness and candor of the greater portion of the witnesses
who have testified in this case -- had I so interfered in behalf of
the Rich, the Powerful, the Intelligent, the so- called Great, or in
behalf of any of their friends, either father, mother, brother,
sister, wife, or children, or any of that class, and suffered and
sacrificed what I have in this interference, it would have been
all right. Every man in this Court would have deemed it an act
worthy a reward rather than a punishment.
This Court acknowledges too, as I suppose, the validity of the
LAW OF GOD. I see a book kissed, which I suppose to be the
BIBLE, or at least the NEW TESTAMENT, which teaches me that,
“All things whatsoever I would that men should do to me, I
should do even so to them.” It teaches me further to,
“Remember them that are in bonds as bound with them.” I
endeavored to act up to that instruction. I say I am yet too
young to understand that GOD is any respecter of persons. I
believe that to have interfered as I have done, as I have always
freely admitted I have done in behalf of this despised poor, is
no wrong, but RIGHT.
Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for
the furtherance of the ends of justice, and MINGLE MY BLOOD
FURTHER WITH THE BLOOD OF MY CHILDREN, and with the
blood of millions in this Slave country whose rights are
disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments, -- I say
LET IT BE DONE.
Let me say one word further: I feel entirely satisfied with the
treatment I have received on my trial. Considering all the
circumstances, it has been more generous than I expected; but I
feel no consciousness of guilt. I have stated from the first what
was my intention and what was not. I never had any design
against the liberty of any person, nor any disposition to commit
treason or excite Slaves to rebel or make any general
insurrection. I never encouraged any man to do so, but always
discouraged any idea of that kind.
Let me say also in regard to the statements made by some of
those who were connected with me; I hear that it has been
stated by some of them, that I have induced them to join me;
but the contrary is true. I do not say this to injure them, but as
regretting their weakness. Not one but joined me of his own
accord, and the greater part at their own expense. A number of
them I never saw, and never had a word of conversation with,
till the day they came to me, and that was for the purpose I
have stated. Now, I am done.
________________________________________________________
1. By whom was this document written or spoken?
2. When and where was it written? Or, when and where did the
testimony take place? Do you think this was written during or a
few days after the raid?
Answer:
I'm doing all of this for 5 points...
1. This document was spoken by John Brown, an American abolitionist, in a court in Virginia just before receiving his sentence of death on November 2, 1859.
2. The testimony took place in a Virginia court in 1859, shortly after the raid on Harpers Ferry. The document is a transcript of Brown's final statement to the court, which he made just before receiving his sentence. It is likely that the document was recorded and transcribed shortly after the testimony was given.
My brain had an aneurysm after doing all of that, please consider marking me brainiest or a thanks if this is correct.
50 Points How did America change between 1800 and 1850?
How did some justify the actions of the Indian Removal act?
Question 3 options:
That is was necessary for the survival of the United States of America.
Rationalized that it would save Natives from harassment from whites and they could live in an area where they could govern themselves.
Natives did not need to land so they could live anywhere.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was widely controversial at the time, as it forced the relocation of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands in the southeastern United States to Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. Despite this, some Americans justified the act in several ways.
One of the most common justifications was that the removal of Native Americans was necessary for the survival of the United States of America. Supporters of this view argued that the expansion of white settlers into Native American lands was inevitable and that the only way to prevent conflict was to remove the tribes to a designated area. They believed that the relocation would allow for the continued growth of the United States and its economy. This justification was supported by some of the most powerful politicians of the day, including President Andrew Jackson, who famously said in his first State of the Union address, "The waves of population and civilization are rolling to the westward, and we now propose to acquire the countries occupied by the red men of the South and West by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual."
Another justification for the Indian Removal Act was the belief that it would save Native Americans from harassment from whites and allow them to live in an area where they could govern themselves. Proponents of this view argued that Native Americans were being mistreated and displaced by white settlers and that relocation to Indian Territory would protect them from further harm. They believed that the arrangement would allow Native Americans to maintain their cultural traditions and govern themselves without interference from white authorities. This view was also supported by some Native American leaders, who saw the relocation as a way to avoid further conflict with white settlers.
However, there were also those who believed that Native Americans did not need land and that they could live anywhere. This view was based on the idea that land was a commodity that could be bought and sold, and that Native Americans did not have a legitimate claim to the land they inhabited. Supporters of this argument believed that Native Americans could live in any area that was not already claimed by white settlers, and that the Indian Removal Act was therefore justified. This view was often used to justify the forced removal of Native Americans from their ancestral lands, as it suggested that they had no real rights to the land and that they could be moved at the will of the government.
In conclusion, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was justified by some Americans on the grounds that it was necessary for the survival of the United States, would protect Native Americans from white harassment, and that Native Americans did not have a legitimate claim to land. Despite these justifications, the act remains a controversial and tragic chapter in American history. The forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands caused immense suffering and loss of life, and it is a reminder of the dark side of American expansionism and the treatment of indigenous peoples.