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.
Answer:
1. someone who has broken the law and is wanted
2. to leave
3. (derogatory) a term for pro-slavery raider from missouri
4. somebody killed for weapons/because of weapons
5. the rights of states to have some form of soverignty
i cant see the power point so i cant help you with that one sorry :(
Explanation:
Yes, to stop communism from spreading, and to change other countries from communism to capatilism
<span>D as a teacher, I am in favor of opening a new school
This is a bias, because it doesn't mean they actually need a new school, but he just wants one
hope this helps
</span>
The treaty prevented the war because <span>The treaty moved the Line of Demarcation 800 miles further west. This gave Portugal more opportunity to claim lands unexplored by other Europeans.
While the portugals were exploring those land, the spain could obtain the resource from the conflicted territories without having to face the threat of the Portuguese's army.</span>
