A similar point between these colonies is how both were based on agriculture that served both food and commerce.
<h3>What were the differences?</h3>
- The colonials of New England focused on the export of wood.
- For this, these colonies had a very efficient transport system.
- The Chesapeake clones focused on tobacco production and export and on perennial crops that provided pasta for food.
Both colonies occupied and expelled indigenous villages, where they had to attack and suffer attacks from the natives due to the occupation of land. This changed the way of life of the natives and forced the creation of relationships between them and the settlers. Among these relationships, the Chesapeake colonies were more friendly, although they had to face some problems.
Learn more about the New England and Chesapeake colonies:
brainly.com/question/28337862
#SPJ1
C. Implied powers
In the U.S., implied powers<span> are powers authorized by the Constitution that, as the word "implied" said, seems implied by powers that are outspokenly stated. It was</span><span> </span>Alexander Hamilton who<span> defended the constitutionality of the </span>First Bank of the United States<span> against protests, giving life to</span><span> what has now the general statement of implied powers.</span>
Answer:
Manufacturing, and automated labor.
Explanation:
A lot of the jobs that required people to do things themselves have now been replaced by robots or by systems that require less people to operate. This can be seen heavily in the industrial revolution.
A.it is more open to individual plots
<span>b. it is more democratic since the elected representatives of the people decide the winner </span>
<span>c. any of the top four candidates can win </span>
<span>d. the Senate usually plays a significant role in the outcome </span>
so technically its true
<em> A.) Improving Roman infrastructures.</em>
<em>When they were moving to another location Roman soldiers did not have to improve on other Roman infrastructures they came upon along the way, because the building of the infrastructures was not organized by the Roman troops, more so they were organized by an architect and the architect's workers.</em>
<em>The reason I also chose A was because the Roman troops traveled in their groups and whenever they were injured it was up to them to man the camp hospitals to heal the wounded. Also recruiting more soldiers along the way was also very helpful to the Roman legion and allowed a much broader amount of soldiers that could be used for taking over land. Not to mention that soldiers (traveling strictly inside their troops) were responsible for feeding themselves (what I'm saying is that the troops were responsible for cooking and feeding each other I just used "themselves" as the word to describe it).</em>
<em>Since Roman soldiers traveled in groups they did not (I'm assuming here I don't know for sure) take women or other people along with them and they only took the amount of soldiers that were assigned by their higher ups. In other words Roman soldiers were really only expected to do as they were ordered to (in modern times any disobedience to what they were ordered to do would have resulted in them having it put on a disaplinary record, but they did not do that sort of thing during Roman times meaning that they punished the soldiers in ways that I don't factually now about). Basically the key importance in the Roman soldier was to carry out the order he received and complete the order quickly and efficiently. However, they did recruit soldiers along the way as they were instructed and that was to help them benefit for taking over land. The commanding officer was the one who told the Roman soldiers what to do when they were traveling (simple tasks, not the task assigned by the current ruler) and the soldiers were expected to complete it. A few of the tasks assigned by the commanding officer could have been to cook, preform healing measures, and recruit more soldiers.</em>
<em>Hope this helps.</em>
<em>-Northstar</em>
