I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
Bc it’s criminals⛓gjguhbhuvug
It would be "developing a strong commercial and industrial economy" that was a part of Alexander Hamilton’s plan for restructuring the nation’s debt, since Hamilton differed with people like Jefferson, who felt the US should be mostly agrarian.
Answer:
The Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months.
Explanation:
The answer should be racial segregation laws which in doctrine saying
"separate but equal"
Your answer should be segregation. I hope this helps!
