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
Viefleur [7K]
3 years ago
7

Explain how Rome’s treatment of conquered people furthered unity in their vast empire

History
1 answer:
malfutka [58]3 years ago
3 0
Hello!
===
Rome's treatment of conquered people furthered unity in their vast empire by increasing the population, increasing the land, and bringing more to Rome.
===
Hope this helps! :)
You might be interested in
When we explain the evidence, we have to talk about how the evidence we gave _____ our claim.
lesya692 [45]

When we explain the evidence, we have to talk about how the evidence we gave <u>proves</u><u> </u>our claim.

4 0
2 years ago
When campaign workers are canvassing neighborhoods, one of their goals is to identify voters who will support their candidate. s
Genrish500 [490]

Answer:

identify voters who will support their candidate

Explanation:

A political campaign is an organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making progress within a specific group.

In democracies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, by which representatives are chosen or referendums are decided.

Canvassing is the systematic initiation of direct contact with individuals, commonly used during political campaigns.

Canvassing can be done for many reasons: political campaigning, grassroots fundraising, community awareness, membership drives, and more. Campaigners knock on doors to contact people personally.

While electoral canvassers purpose is to assist the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) with the annual compilation of the Register of Electors.

You will be required to visit all properties you are assigned and make attempts to obtain a completed form for these properties.

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What effect of the French and Indian War led indirectly to the American Revolution?
Arlecino [84]
The war provided Great Britain enormous territorial gains in North America but disputes over subsequent frontier policy and paying the wars expenses led to colonial discontent and ultimately to the American revolution
6 0
2 years ago
Can someone please help
gayaneshka [121]

Answer:

The answer is D (:

8 0
3 years ago
in opposition to the declaration of war against Mexico, what did first term u.s congressman Abraham Lincoln demand to be shown?
Vilka [71]
<span>Elected as a Whig to Congress in 1846, Abraham Lincoln gained notoriety when he lashed out against the Mexican War, calling it immoral, proslavery, and a threat to the nation's republican values. President James K. Polk had called for war, accusing Mexico of shedding of "American blood on American soil.” Lincoln responded by introducing a series of resolutions demanding to know the "particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed." One of Lincoln's constituents branded him "the Benedict Arnold of our district," and he was denied renomination by his own party.
Document: Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused to receive him, [the envoy of the United States,] or listen to his propositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil:" And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens:" And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, that "the Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil." And whereas this House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil: Therefore, Resolved By the House of Representatives, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House --1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution.2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico.3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army.4th. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.5th. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or the United States, by consent or compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.6th. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the messages stated; and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the enclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.7th. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through the Secretary of War.8th. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.Source: Abraham Lincoln, “Spot Resolutions,” December 22, 1847Copyright 2016 Digital History         

this is the site i got it from does this help you or no?



</span>
4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How did the initially small slide in stock prices lead to the stock market crash?
    7·1 answer
  • Why did President Jefferson want to acquire the Louisiana territory
    6·2 answers
  • Why are presidential debates so important for the American public?
    11·1 answer
  • Which southern city did u.s. admiral david farragut capture in 1862?
    7·1 answer
  • Description and historical importance of democracy
    8·1 answer
  • How did the Social Security Administration impact Georgia?
    14·1 answer
  • Which statement describes William Blackstone's contribution to government
    8·1 answer
  • The type of work women could do was restricted not just by gender but also by: (select all that apply)
    8·1 answer
  • Testing question please do not delete
    13·1 answer
  • List 5 ways the government tried to help African Americans have equal rights?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!