An estimated 50,000 slaves escaped as a direct impact of: lax laws relating to slave ownership mismanagement of the transportion of slaves the underground railroad human rights campaigns in the south.

An estimated 50,000 slaves escaped as a direct impact of the Underground Railroad.

Explanation:

The Underground Railroad was a clandestine network organized in the 19th century in the United States and Canada to help African American slaves escape from the southern plantations to free states or Canada.

Members of the Underground Railroad operated underground and usually only knew each other by their pseudonyms, so as not to compromise their safety. They also made the passengers swear that they would keep the secret.

The Underground Railroad looked for its collaborators within the abolitionist movement, of which it was a part, and thus it continued to extend its activities always outside the law.

The Underground Railroad operated until after the Civil War slavery was definitively abolished. The people who had collaborated with the Underground Railroad played an important role in the war because of the instruction received and the knowledge of the terrain.

Throughout its existence, the Underground Railroad managed to free thousands of slaves and also influenced public opinion to win supporters of the abolitionist cause.

i'm asking the same thing i asked this other cat all of

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is