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
sashaice [31]
3 years ago
8

By 1880, the U.S. had refueling stations for Naval ships in the Philippines and Hawaii. True/False

History
2 answers:
zhuklara [117]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

The statement is false. By 1880, the United States did not have refueling stations for naval ships in the Philippines and Hawaii.

Explanation:

During the 1880s, Hawaii and the Philippines were not part of the American territory. Both territories were acquired in 1898, Hawaii through an annexation, and the Philippines as a result of the Spanish-American War. Therefore, at that time the United States could not have naval stations in those territories, as they had no sovereignty over them.

slavikrds [6]3 years ago
4 0
True. By that time reconstruction was going really well
You might be interested in
"what role did mining play in the development of the american west"
leonid [27]
A lot of people came to the West to find gold to the point that the population rose dramatically and allowed territories to apply for statehood. Hope this can help :-D
3 0
3 years ago
_ involves countries negotiating with each other to settle their their differences
Serjik [45]
Diplomacy involves countries negotiating with each other to settle their differences.
Hope this helps!
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which empire included the territory that is now part of Turkey, Greece, and Egypt? A. Ottoman B. Safavid C. Mughal A. A: Ottoman
snow_lady [41]
A: Ottoman is the correct answer.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What were the peace terms after the French and Indian war?
shusha [124]

Great Britain got huge gains in territory, and France gave up most of their land.

5 0
3 years ago
Which option most accurately summarizes the conflicting perspectives that erupted into the conflict known as “Bleeding Kansas”?
Veseljchak [2.6K]

Pro slavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories; antislavery advocates argued that this gave slave holding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slave holding settlers.

Pro slavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.  

Pro slavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution; antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas’s state constitution.

Pro slavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820; antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott case.


5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why were Texas Longhorns chosen over other breeds for cattle drives?
    14·1 answer
  • Drag the item from the item bank to its corresponding match. ITEM BANK: Move to Top CitizenJury DutyLawResponsibilityVolunteeris
    15·1 answer
  • Which is an example of a civilian?
    5·1 answer
  • Hey what are yall people doing today
    6·2 answers
  • What tranformed U.S. politics in the 1920s​
    14·1 answer
  • What was John Adams’s opinion of the pace of the revolution
    7·1 answer
  • The Roman Empire was split into eastern and western
    10·2 answers
  • Does Hamilton get his Financial Plan passed by Congress?
    10·1 answer
  • Empires! i need help! answer my question
    6·1 answer
  • Who helped the colonists defeat the British at the Battle of Yorktown?
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!