Free blacks included farmers, day laborers, artisans, or tenant farmers; they were concentrated in the upper South in Maryland and Virginia. A few free blacks owned slaves and small plantations or large farms, but they could not move in the same social circles as their white counterparts. Free blacks who lived in the South were about 6 percent of the total free black population of 500,000. Although free in name, they were denied most citizenship rights, and in only two northern states did they have the right to vote. They could not lay claim to public land, travel abroad, or even travel freely in the United States without a pass. In most places, they could not get an education. And, regardless of the state, they were relegated to segregated neighborhoods. In the South, free blacks primarily socialized only with each other.

Which detail shows the difference in status between free blacks and enslaved workers?

Free blacks were able to make their own money.
Free blacks could travel anywhere in the United States.
Free blacks had all of the rights and freedoms of US citizens.
Free blacks often attended social functions held by white Southerners.

A. Free blacks were able to make their own money.

Explanation:

I got it right on edge :)

the answer would be 96

step-by-step explanation:

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