According to Cornwallis he would have either endeavored to escape to New-York or would notwithstanding the disparity of numbers have attacked them in the open field. This was what he said in a letter he reported to Sir Henry Clinton when he failed to defend the York and Gloucester posts. :)
The reason that President Lincoln gave for fighting the Civil War was<u> B) use any </u><u>means necessary </u><u>to save the </u><u>Union</u><u>.</u>
<h3>President Lincoln's actions</h3>
- President Lincoln tried to reassure the South that he would not end slavery.
- Lincoln believed that the secession of the South States would lead to the destruction of the Union.
Lincoln therefore decided that the best way to protect the Union would be to bring the Southern States back into the fold by any mans necessary including force.
In conclusion, option B is correct.
Find out more on President Lincoln at brainly.com/question/12827866.
I believe it is located in California.
Answer:
C. The freedom to do what he pleases
Explanation:
in the beginning of the passage it starts off with a promise, to finish two years of apprenticing for his uncle and then "he could do whatever he pleased." By looking through these answer choices and reading back it didnt seem like Jesse was scared of what was to come but excited and relieved. As for the other answer choices, it doesnt seem to fit the analogy.
Answer:
I hope it helps u.
Explanation:
Arms races have generated a great deal of interest for a variety of reasons. They are widely believed to have significant consequences for states' security, but agreement stops there. In the debate over their consequences, one side holds that arms races increase the probability of war by undermining military stability and straining political relations. The opposing view holds that engaging in an arms race is often a state's best option for avoiding war when faced with an aggressive adversary. Debate over the causes of arms races is just as divided. One school believes that arms races are primarily rational responses to external threats and opportunities, whereas arms race skeptics believe that arms buildups are usually the product of a mixture of internal, domestic interests, including those of the scientists involved in research and development (R&D), the major producers of weapons systems, and the military services that will operate them. The policy implications of these contending views are equally contradictory; critics see arms control as a way to reduce the probability of war and rein in domestic interests that are distorting the state's security policy, and proponents argue that military competition is most likely to protect the state's international interests and preserve peace.
Arms buildups and arms races also play a prominent role in international relations (IR) theory. Building up arms is one of a state's three basic options for acquiring the military capabilities it requires to achieve its international goals; the other two are gaining allies and cooperating with its adversary to reduce threats. In broad terms, choosing between more competitive and more cooperative combinations of these options is among the most basic decisions a state must make, and it is often the most important.
Mark me as brainlist answer,
Have a nice day,
Thank you ☺
