Actually, it is unlikely that Henry uttered those precise words. The phrase was first attributed to him in 1816, more than 40 years after the revolution. Regardless, Henry’s speech encouraged Virginia legislators to provide troops to the Revolutionary War effort, helping to create the Continental Army less than three months later. After the revolution, Henry became the first governor of the state of Virginia.
Answer:
The correct answer is D. The French did not push them off their land or try to change their customs.
Explanation:
The relationship between the French and the Native Americans was way more cordial than the relationship between the British and the Native Americans. The French were interested in establishing trade posts instead of permanent settlements like the British did, so they did not displaced the Native people. The French respected their ways, made a point to learn their languages, and worked closely with them in the fur trade, becoming trusted friends.
That is why the Native Americans sided with the French against the British in the Seven Years War.
Rome's rivalry with Carthage for control of the western Mediterranean
Answer:
hope it helps...
Explanation:
Symbols used in Political Cartoons:
Peace - dove, olive branch, victory sign.
United States - Uncle Sam, flag, stars and stripes, shield.
Democrats - donkey.
Republicans - elephant.
Death - vulture, skeleton with shroud, skull and crossbones, grim reaper.
Love - heart, Cupid, Venus.
Money - dollar bill or dollar sign.
Answer:
I mean debate can encourage new laws but if you have one side wishing for laws and the other against it. It will usually slow legislation which is entirely the purpose. But it depends on what view are you taking it from because th end result can be no legislation at all or even a relaxation of legislation in fact that's happened in some states. So it depends on the view and narrative you wish to push. because it can be a semblance of all but B. If you're a centrist you'd probably say this debate will encourage new laws but the whole point of not wishing for infringements upon one's rights means no new laws. If you wanted new laws then this debate is a waste of time but you're angering a large portion of the population because you seek not to listen to the statistics and thereby information one may have that may dissuade from the legislation. And if you look at D it can be so. If 2 cannot agree then rights will not be infringed upon. Unless the side with more representatives that disagrees with the right then such laws will be enacted. Yes, they can place new restrictions and there you can make the case it's unconstitutional and etc because well there is ground and a foundation laid upon there. But as far as an actual thing it'd be A I suppose. But I'd question the teacher because it depends on how one views a division. It can be either cooperative relationships that can be mended or an all or nothing if it's not my way then we will have conflict and it shall erupt. It all depends.
Explanation:
