What was the importance of ancient Egypt

What did the French and Indian war in the stamp act have in common

OlgaM077 [116]

American revolution was cause French and Indian war in the stamp act have in common.

Further Explanation:

Begun the Indian war:

The French and Indian War started in 1754 and finished with the Treaty of Paris in 1763. The war gave Great Britain gigantic regional gains in North America, however disagreements regarding ensuing wilderness strategy and paying the war's costs prompted provincial discontent, and at last to the American Revolution.

War was in France:

France and its partners were successful this time. Social, political, and monetary change in the wake of the contention prompted the Second World War, where the Allies were crushed in the Battle of France and the French government marked a peace negotiation with Germany.

Who won the Indian war:

Despite the fact that the British won the war with the French, the British still confronted squeezing frontier issues that the Treaty of Paris just exasperated. The Indians specifically were irritated by the arrangements of harmony that pretty much ruled out their worries.

The end of the Indian wars:

The peak came in the War of 1812, which brought about the thrashing of real Indian alliances in the Midwest and the South. Struggle with pilgrims turned out to be significantly less normal and were settled by bargain, regularly through deal or trade of an area between the central government and explicit clans.

Subject: history

Level: High School

Keywords: Begun the Indian war, War was in France, Who won the Indian war, The end of the Indian wars.

Related links:

Learn more about evolution on

brainly.com/question/1923595

brainly.com/question/2429969

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

which leader implemented a set of politics aimed at improving the U.S economy during the Great depression by launching public wo

Alex Ar [27]

I think Roosevelt did but i am not 100% sure

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

For this assignment, you will choose a geographic region to research. You will create a Background

LekaFEV [45]

Ok so um like how are we supposed to do this

6 0

3 years ago

explain how the Wilmot Proviso was so controversial in raising the debate over the slave issue again to such intense levels.

Pachacha [2.7K]

The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.

Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)

7 0

3 years ago

The lost city of white male privilege, a controversial municipality whose very existence is often denied by many (mostly privile

neonofarm [45]

According to the research that I made, this is the passage that explains why the book entitled “The Sellout” by Paul Beatty won the Booker Prize and it is because of its content which is about the privilege of white male.

8 0

3 years ago