1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Irina18 [472]
3 years ago
15

How did grant's peace policy fail to consider the needs of native americans in the west, and what were its results? quizzlet?

History
1 answer:
Korvikt [17]3 years ago
6 0

<u>Grant's peace policy led to the Battle of Little Bighorn. </u>

Grant's policy had a total disregard for the Indians' freedom, culture and way of life. President Grant's policy failed to consider the needs of Native Americans by placing them in reservations where missionaries would teach them how to be "civilized", how to farm, to wear European clothing, and to adopt Christianity as their religion. If there was any opposition by Indians, soldiers would force them off of tribal lands. As a result, the Battle of the Little Bighorn took place when tribal armies refused to stay off of their land and waged a war against the whites.    

You might be interested in
What role did the kings play in ancient israel
spin [16.1K]

Although surrounded by nations that had been governed by kings for many years—Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, and the nations of Canaan—kingship and a centralized form of government did not appear in Israel until about 1000 B.C. Before that time, the Jewish Scriptures say that “Israel wasn’t ruled by a king, and everyone did what they thought was right” (Judg 21:25). During this period the various tribes of Israel enjoyed a more or less independent existence. When attacked by a mutual enemy, however, they would join forces under the direction of special leaders chosen by God and called “judges.” As these attacks became more frequent many people in Israel felt the need for a more permanent form of leadership. Finally, the people said, “we want a king to be our leader, just like all the other nations” (1 Sam 8:5).

This demand caused serious problems for Israel. The people clearly needed a strong military leader to deal with the political situation. But when Israel said they were “just like all the other nations” they denied their special relationship with God. From the time of Moses, the people of Israel saw themselves as God’s chosen people, with God rather than a human being as their king. Samuel, a prophet and the last judge of Israel, warned the people about the dangers of having a human king (1 Sam 8:11-18). In the end, however, he agreed to take the matter to the Lord who allowed the Israelites to have a king. But this king would have to be chosen by God and would be expected to make God’s invisible rule over the people visible. In this way, the people had their “king,” but God would continue to rule over them.

The Jewish Scriptures reflect both positive and negative evaluations of how well kingship worked for Israel. For example, the first king, Saul, forgot his role as God’s appointed leader soon after he was crowned king. Saul’s kingship ended very sadly and tragically (1 Sam 15). On the other hand, David is clearly the best example of a faithful king. God rewarded David for his obedience by promising that someone from David’s family would always rule Israel (2 Sam 7). Some kings after David refused to obey God’s Law and did not rule according to God’s instructions. Very often these kings, like Ahab and Manasseh, were killed and quickly forgotten. Others, like Hezekiah and Josiah, did their best to serve God and were rewarded for their faithfulness with many years as king.

Israel’s four hundred year experiment with kingship began to come to an end in 721 B.C. when the northern kingdom (Israel) was destroyed by Assyria. When the Babylonians defeated the southern kingdom (Judah) and took King Zedekiah and its leading citizens into captivity, kingship in Israel ended for good.


8 0
3 years ago
What does South Africa have in common with the United state
devlian [24]

The United States and South Africa share strong educational and people-to-people ties, significant economic and political interests, as well as common development objectives throughout Africa. ... The United States seeks opportunities for increased U.S.-South African cooperation on regional and international issues.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Help Help HElp HELp HELP!!!!!!!!!
aalyn [17]

Answer:

1. True 2. False 3. False 4.Mao's little red book

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Why was the health and morals of apprentices act 1802 needed
Varvara68 [4.7K]

Answer:

The Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802 (42 Geo III c. 73), sometimes known as the Factory Act 1802, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom designed to improve conditions for apprentices working in cotton mills.

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
In 1827, the Cherokee Nation formally established a government and declared themselves sovereign. What does this mean?
saveliy_v [14]

Answer:

independent

Explanation:

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What drove the colonists to declare independence against britain?
    12·2 answers
  • How can the creation of a new empire impact of people and culture of a region
    10·2 answers
  • Who started the first school to teach sailors about oceanic navigation
    9·1 answer
  • What time of year did the pilgrims arrive in Plymouth
    9·2 answers
  • How was the church an obstacle to monarchs who wanted more power?
    6·2 answers
  • Which of these statements is TRUE about Nikita Khrushchev's domestic policies?
    15·2 answers
  • The lowest class of whites in the colonies consisted of the paupers and convicted criminals involuntarily shipped to america by
    13·1 answer
  • What is one of the driest and hottest regions of the earth
    9·2 answers
  • This individual gives a speech in which he
    14·1 answer
  • PLS HEP ITS A TEXT GIVING BRAINLIST
    10·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!