Answer:Please specify a graph
Explanation:
Answer:
The situation of the 60s - early 70s of the 18th century gives the impression that Britain deliberately provoked a colonial rebellion. The starting point of post-war tension growth was decree of 1763 on the Allegany-Cumberland line. It was followed in 1765 by a series of laws aimed at further economic strangulation of the colonies, in particular the Stamp Act, which introduced the five times taxation of all printed matter produced in the colonies and any legal documents drawn up on their territory.
The legislative initiatives of the mother country have become increasingly ominous. Thus, failure to comply with the Stamp Act threatened with the death penalty. De facto colonies were plunged into the atmosphere of medieval legal brutality.
In response, the Sons of Liverty extremist groups attacked British military and royal officials in the colonies. In parallel, a massive boycott of British goods began.
Such a decisive response caused confusion in London. In parliament, the voice of a few supporters of softening attitudes toward the colonies was finally heard. The internal struggle that took place in British political circles at that time was reflected by subsequent “zigzags” in their lawmaking. So, in 1766 the Stamp Act was canceled and the Sugar Act was softened, which retained the prohibition only on the import of rum into colonies. But in 1777, the Townshend Acts entered into force, introducing increased duties on imported tea, glass, paper, paints, and lead.
The Boston Massacre provoked a violent reaction. Riots spread to small towns and rural areas. The escalation of the conflict has a ‘sobering’ effect on the British Parliament. A gesture of reconciliation on its part was the abolition of the Townshend Acts, with one strange exception - the preservation of high duties on the import of tea. But such small concessions could no longer defuse the situation.
Explanation:
Answer:
Both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis had to deal with contentious congresses with often clashing interests and agendas. In Davis’ case the discord was intrinsic in the very “States’ Rights” concept behind the Confederacy, though in practice Lincoln had plenty of cat herding of his own to do. Lincoln was arguably the more successful president in having better political instincts, which became more evident as he grew into his presidency—a talent for knowing when and how to cajole, horse-trade, bribe outright or ruthlessly assert his power, depending on who he was dealing with. For all the thinking on his feet that he did, however, Lincoln never lost sight of his principal goal, and in 1864 he ultimately found generals who shared the Commander-in-Chief’s intent. Davis was less adept at this, often letting his generals do the strategizing for him (after Robert E. Lee’s stunning success in the Seven Days Campaign, it was hard for Davis to argue when Marse Robert proposed taking the fight north into Yankee territory). Davis’ judgment in picking senior generals in the critical Western theater of operations (Braxton Bragg, then Joseph E. Johnston, followed by John Bell Hood) also speaks for itself; Lincoln’s worst choices in the East were finally behind him by the time he turned to Ulysses S. Grant in March 1864.
The landscape, being mostly very flat, cause many Native American societies to be spread out over significant portions of land, while the climate made them have to adapt to a variety of temperatures. The resources forced them to rely heavily on corn and fish do the inability to plant other types of food.
looks like you just answered your own question?
