Why did suburbs tend to have little diversity?
a. jim crow laws in northern suburbs prevented minorities from
moving in.
b. only minority families could afford to buy a house in the suburbs.
c. only white families could afford to buy a house in the suburbs.
d. the government only gave government assistance to buy houses
to white families.

C. Only white families could afford to buy a house in the suburbs.

Explanation:

A is incorrect because it technically did not ever place a "ban" on specific races being able to move into suburbs, all it did was segregate whites and blacks in schools, public places, etc.

B is incorrect because minority groups were often discriminated against pay wise and job eligibility wise, so it would not make sense that they would be the only ones that could afford housing in suburbs.

C is correct because white families were the only "group" that could afford the housing because they were least discriminated against in a work environment back in the 1960s.

D is incorrect because it just doesn't make sense, I do not believe the government has any housing financial aid in the 1960s in general.

Hopefully this helps!

answer: sorry but maybe take a pic of the map so nobody's confused

explanation:

both are true, the congress does have the power to create banks, even if this power is not specifically described in the constitution, since there is nothing restricting it and there is power given to the congress to make "all laws which shall be necessary and proper". maryland was not allowed to tax a branch of the national bank operating there, and the supreme court decided that no state could. both of these topics were discussed in a decision of the mcculloch v. maryland case in 1819.