Both the Southern and Middle Colonies had fertile farmlands, but only the Middle Colonies was able to provide trading opportunities, thanks to their coastal lowland and bay-provided harbors. Southern Colonies highly contributed to the rise of cash crops such as rice, tobacco, and indigo. Slaves cultivate huge tracts of land and plantations owned by wealthy aristocrats and large landowners. On the other hand, Middle Colonies were more suitable for growing grain and livestock, with its environment ideal for small to large farms. More diverse workforce also exists in the Middle Colonies, consisting of farmers, fisherman, and merchants. Another notable contrast between the two colonies is that, for the people of the South, life developed as rough and rural while people of the Middle countries are deeply connected to the Church and village community.
Answer:
Major Events of World War II. When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, France and Britain declared war on Germany. After conquering Poland, Germany attacked France. France fell in June 1940, and soon the Nazis overran most of the rest of Europe and North Africa.
Explanation:
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
I'm 90% sure that they protested to the taxes
Rome had a superior army and naval fleet which made them be triumphant in all three Punic wars.
Explanation:
Rome and Carthage fought in three Punic wars wherein Rome faced the victory and Carthage assumed to be the powerful state in North Africa. Rome intervened in the affairs of Sicily which was controlled by Carthage; Rome indulged in a war with Carthage and controlled the city in silkily. It was a very powerful in having a well versed military power and a strong naval fleet.
In the second and third Punic wars, Romans invaded the Carthagean army under the ruler Scipio which made them to have control over Africa as yet another mighty province of Rome.
