Please HURYY AND ANWER RIGHT I WILL GOVE BRAINLEST Sorry I know it’s a lot to read
By 1860, there were about four million enslaved workers in the South. The plantation owners of the South, who were dependent on enslaved laborers, had much of their personal wealth tied up in enslaved persons. For example, a plantation owner might have had fifty enslaved persons. Their value in 1860, according to the records of the time, would have been about $80,000, a value of about $2.2 million today. Historians estimate that up to 50% of the wealth of the South was tied up in the institution of slavery, which is an important reason why so many Southern leaders were unwilling to discuss any type of emancipation.

Which idea does this secondary source support?

Enslaved persons were too valuable for Southern leaders to consider emancipation.

Many owners of large plantations could not afford enslaved workers.

Plantation owners paid millions of dollars for enslaved workers.

Almost all Southerners could afford to have enslaved workers in the antebellum era.

Enslaved persons were too valuable for Southern leaders to consider emancipation.

Explanation:

"The plantation owners of the South, who were dependent on enslaved laborers, had much of their personal wealth tied up in enslaved persons."

and

Their value would be about $80,000 or $2.2mil today

Enslaved persons were too valuable for Southern leaders to consider emancipation

Explanation:

B is wrong because many owners could actually afford them. C is wrong because though they were worth millions today, they weren't worth that much at the time. D is wrong because the passage doesn't talk/mention that. A is right because it says it in the passage, "The plantation owners of the South, who were dependent on enslaved laborers, had much of their personal wealth tied up in enslaved persons...50% of the wealth of the South was tied up in the institution of slavery, which is an important reason why so many Southern leaders were unwilling to discuss any type of emancipation."

answer: a parliamentary system is a system of democratic governance of a state where the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature, typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. in a parliamentary system, the head of state is usually a person distinct from the head of government. this is in contrast to a presidential system, where the head of state often is also the head of government and, most importantly, the executive does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

countries with parliamentary democracies may be constitutional monarchies, where a monarch is the head of state while the head of government is almost always a member of parliament (such as the united kingdom, denmark, sweden, and japan), or parliamentary republics, where a mostly ceremonial president is the head of state while the head of government is regularly from the legislature (such as ireland, germany, india, and italy). in a few parliamentary republics, such as botswana, south africa, and suriname, among some others, the head of government is also head of state, but is elected by and is answerable to parliament. in bicameral parliaments, the head of government is generally, though not always, a member of the lower house.

parliamentarianism is the dominant form of government in europe, with 32 of its 50 sovereign states being parliamentarian. it is also common in the caribbean, being the form of government of 10 of its 13 island states, and in oceania. elsewhere in the world, parliamentary countries are less common, but they are distributed through all continents, most often in former colonies of the british empire that subscribe to a particular brand of parliamentarianism known as the westminster system.

explanation: