He made a rule saying if you do not work you do not eat. hope that helps
I think they didn’t really have a judgement about who owned the land but had different tribes of different people, the different tribes might’ve had controversy against each other but that isn’t exactly known. Conflicts over the use and ownership of Native lands are not new. Land has been at the center of virtually every significant interaction between Natives and non-Natives since the earliest days of European contact with the indigenous peoples of North America. By the 19th century, federal Indian land policies divided communal lands among individual tribal members in a proposed attempt to make them into farmers. The result instead was that struggling tribes were further dispossessed of their land. In recent decades, tribes, corporations, and the federal government have fought over control of Native land and resources in contentious protests and legal actions, including the Oak Flat, the San Francisco Peaks Controversy, and the Keystone XL pipeline
To protect individual rights, the Anti-Federalists wanted to add a bill of rights to the Constitution.
While Federalists supported the Constitution,<u> Anti-Federalists were against the ratification of the Constitution since they believed that this document gave too much power to the central government</u>, which posed a risk to the individual liberty. In order to protect the individual rights, Anti-Federalists wanted to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, even though Federalists did not think that this was necessary. However, <u>the Bill of Rights, which was inspired by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, was finally approved in Congress in 1789</u>.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
the enemy can't recover without the civilian resources to resupply themselves with.
