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.
<span>The English Bill of Rights limited the power of the monarch (King) and gave more power to the common citizen. (Do not confuse with the Magna Carta, it only gave power to nobles.)</span>
Much of "Africa" <span>came under European control in 19th century, since this was during a time when European nations were "scrambling" to acquire as much territory and natural resources as possible. </span>
After the president gets a bill they can choose to either approve or veto it. If they veto it goes back to congress to be voted on again. If he approves it becomes a law.
d. He told Coronado to be slow and cautious about approaching the Natives.
