Articles of Agreement between A. Van der Horst - and. Freedmen & women who agree to hire ourselves as Laborers from Jan 10th 1867 to Jan 10th 1868.
We link ourselves to perform any kind of labour he or his agent may direct for which we agree to receive 5100 for the twelve
months 4 of which to be paid at the end of each month. To be provisioned with 3 lbs. of Bacon, 1 peck of corn or meat, & 1/2
pint of Salt. Also sox yards of woolens to make a suit of clothes.
Women to receive $60 for the twelve months. $2.50 to be paid at the end of each month.
Any hand which does not suit may be on being paid in full for the time he has laboured be dismissed from this place
Which statement BEST summarizes the effect of this Reconstruction Era labor agreement?
A)
Pay was equally distributed regardless of gender.
B
Black farmers could legally be kept in an inferior role
Industry made farming a low paid and obsolete occupation.
D)
The Federal government repaid formers slaves for their bondage.

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.