<span>Assuming that this is referring to the same chart that was posted before with this question, <span>the correct response would be that they received most of their revenue from trade, since the arrows pointing to their location show the most ports. </span></span>
Political opponents of President John Adams opposed the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 because it stripped American citizens of the right to free speech, which blatantly violated the Constitution.
<u><em>In 1684</em></u> the government of <em><u>Charles II</u></em> revoked the <u>Massachusetts Bay Company colonial charter</u>. This was a joint stock trading company chartered by the English crown in 1629 to colonize a vast area in <em><u>New England</u></em>. John Winthrop, Thomas Dudley, Henry Vane, Richard Bellingham, John Endecott, John Leverett, and Simon Bradstreet were some of the Governors. The main reason in England to take this decision was not to attain efficiency in administration but to guarantee that the purpose of the colonies was to make England richer. After the revocation of the <u>Massachusetts charter</u>, <u><em>King Charles II</em></u> and the Lords of Trade moved forward with plans to establish a unified administration over some of the New England colonies.
<span>When the Federal Reserve puts money into the banking system then the short term interest rates fall
because the banks will be willing o take more risk so it will fall
hope it helps</span>
The answer really depends on whether the farmer is also the landlord or only a worker in the fields, and bearing in mind that the question refers only to Chavez’ reforms, not what is now called Chavismo, that is to say, the rule of President Maduro.
If the first, then there are chances that the landlord would feel threatened about the fact this his land could be —although not necessarily— appropriated by the State, but also, he might feel relieved to learn that his land could be more productive since there would be a lot more subsidies for farming since the oil revenues of the country would again be in the hands of the State.
If it is the second possibility, the farmer most likely would feel relieved altogether since subsidies to labor power and farming would mean greater income and better living conditions for him and his family.
