What was the significance of the 1876 election? a)The results marked the beginning of segregation. b)The results marked the end of Reconstruction. c)The results marked the end of segregation. d)The results marked the beginning of Reconstruction.

Answers

Answer 1
Answer:

Answer:

b)The results marked the end of Reconstruction.

Explanation:

The presidential elections of 1876 were the most disputed and intense in the electoral history of the United States of America. Samuel J. Tilden of New York, defeated the Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, originally from Ohio, in the popular vote. Thus, Tilden would receive 184 electoral votes against 165 of Hayes, but 20 votes were not counted, and were in dispute, and came from the states of Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. Each party declared its voters as winners, but in Ohio a Democratic elector was dismissed from his position for holding a public office. Finally, Hayes assumed the presidency on March 4, 1877.


Related Questions

Explain why Britain's policy of appeasement failed to prevent the German expansion from 1937 to the takeover of Czechoslovakia in March 1939.
As learning and trade progressed, the medieval structure began to break down. True or false?
What is the name of the system that keeps one branch of the federal governmentfrom becoming too powerful?A) federal reserveB) checks and balancesC) dual federalismD) concurrent majority
American Indians use the Cumberland Gap to a hunt and fish because the area was filled with streams and wildlife bexplore the Southern Mississippi River Valley C attack settlers as they moved west across the gap d move through at the Appalachians before Europeans arrived
Please help will upvote !!!Which sentence uses vivid imagery?A) Blue is the best color in the world. B) My dog is asleep in the backyard. C) We went to the store to buy apples. D) The puffy, white clouds sailed across the sky.

How did the War Powers Act of 1973 impact the role of the president?

Answers

Answer: The act placed a limit on the president's ability to send troops into hostile areas.

Context/detail:

Passed in 1973 over the veto of President Richard Nixon, the War Powers Resolution (its official name) blocks presidents from continuing the pursuance of a war without Congress's approval.  In practice, however, the War Powers Act has often been sidestepped by presidents.  The US Constitution leaves some tension in place between the legislative and executive branch when it comes to the country's involvement in war.  Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.  But Article II names the President the Commander-in-Chief, and presidents frequently have understood that role as containing the authority to deploy US forces without first getting congressional approval.  The War Powers Act has been an ongoing point of controversy as US forces have been sent into all sorts of conflict zones in the 21st century without formal declarations of war.

The war powers act of 1973 came into place as a result of the actions of LBJ in the Vietnam war, he had been very secretive about how many troops he ordered and how he was conducting the war.  The War powers act of 1973 stated that the president was required to inform congress on war policies/strategies, and the president could not send troops to a foreign power for more than 60 days without declaration of war by Congress.  It was vetoed by president Nixon, but congress passed it over his veto.  This law impacted the role of the president by limiting his/her power when it comes to war.  Today, it essentially acts as another "check" in the system of checks and balances by making sure that the Executive branch (president) does't have too much power over foreign policy.  Hope this helps!

Should the Federal government be allowed to increase its power while the United States is at war

Answers

all depends on the situation. If need be they should be allowed to.

What took place in Rwanda that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

Answers

Between April and June 1994 a genocide took place in Rwanda, approximately 800,000 people were killed. The genocide was based on the ethnic differences between the Hutus and the Tutsis, these differences were hard to see since the spoke the same language, had the same traditions, and lived in the same places. It all started with the Belgian colonists which separated them, believing the Tutsis were superior and causing resentment amongst Hutus.

Hutus did a campaing against Tutsis making them responsible for everything that went wrong. This campaign was encouraged by the presidential guard and radio propaganda, forming an unofficial militia group called the Interahamwe. A genocide implies the attempt of destruction of an specific group of people, in other words, the Hutus wanted to erase the Tutsis from Earth.  

the hutu mounted a campaign

Describe how taxes can be used to affect people’s behavior

Answers