Answer:
either A or C i am not sure
Explanation:
but wat r u thinking?
Answer:
irst supporting and then repudiating Mexican regimes during the period 1910-1920.[1]
Explanation:
The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution was varied and seemingly contradictory, first supporting and then repudiating Mexican regimes during the period 1910-1920.[1] For both economic and political reasons, the U.S. government generally supported those who occupied the seats of power, whether they held that power legitimately or not. A clear exception was the French Intervention in Mexico, when the U.S. supported the beleaguered liberal government of Benito Juárez at the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865). Prior to Woodrow Wilson's inauguration on March 4, 1913, the U.S. Government focused on just warning the Mexican military that decisive action from the U.S. military would take place if lives and property of U.S. nationals living in the country were endangered.[2] President William Howard Taft sent more troops to the US-Mexico border but did not allow them to intervene in the conflict,[3][4] a move which Congress opposed.[4] Twice during the Revolution, the U.S. sent troops into Mexico.
The statement that best explains why tension grew between European leaders over colonialism in Africa is: "Some were angered because other nations took over their colonies." Option D is correct.
Between the 1870s and 1900, Africa coped to European imperialist aggression, diplomatic pressures, military invasions, and eventual conquest and colonization.
The European imperialist push into Africa was motivated by three main factors, economic, political, and social.
The farms of the South raised agricultural products.<span>
</span>
Melancton Smith (anti-federalist): what sort of people in society would support this view? middle class because he's advocating for them to be represented in the gov.
