Basic argument of the Federalists for ratification <span>of the constitution is that it would give the central government more powers which was essential for the survival of the United States. A stronger central government would improve the economy, foreign relations, and would give the government more power to levy taxes and execute laws, as well as the power to create a strong military without permission from the states.
Arguments against the ratification would be used by ANTI-Federalists, NOT Federalists.
Those arguments against ratification were that the central government would get too powerful and strip the average citizens of their rights. Other problems that were brought forth were the states' representation in the government. Eventually, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution and the anti-Federalists were less apposed to it.
</span><span>
</span>
The correct option is : Land
At the beginning of the 19th century Spain offered generous parcels of land in Las Floridas to attract settlers and they began to flow both from Spain and from the United States. The American settlers began attacking indigenous settlements that took their revenge by making incursions into US territory. The army of the United States began to cross the border with Spanish Florida to persecute the Seminoles.
Answer: He came up with the short stabbing spear and the long shield
Explanation:
Before Shaka Zulu came to prominence, the tribes in Southern Africa at the time fought with long spears and short shields. Each side would stand apart from the other and throw their long spears to try to kill as many of the other ones as they could.
Shaka Zulu decried this method and came up with a short stabbing spear and a long shield. With the long shield made of cow skin, Zulu warriors would be able to hide from the spears thrown by their enemies and then when they ran out of spears, Zulu warriors would attack them and use shot stabbing spears which were made for close combat, to defeat them.
As the periodic bloodshed continues in the Middle East, the search for
an equitable solution must come to grips with the root cause of the
conflict. The conventional wisdom is that, even if both sides are at
fault, the Palestinians are irrational “terrorists” who have no point of
view worth listening to. Our position, however, is that the
Palestinians have a real grievance: their homeland for over a thousand
years was taken, without their consent and mostly by force, during the
creation of the state of Israel. And all subsequent crimes — on both
sides — inevitably follow from this original injustice.
Population growth, agricultural policy, land ownership policy, and illegal logging.
