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
kumpel [21]
3 years ago
9

On March 1862, Union forces won a decisive battle at ... A. Pea ridge

History
1 answer:
IrinaVladis [17]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

1 pea ridge and the 2 samuel curtis

Explanation:

You might be interested in
What was the significance of the us Supreme Court decision in Marbury v Madison (1803)
ANEK [815]

<em>Marbury v. Madison</em> was significant because it asserted the Supreme Court's right of judicial review -- the ability to declare a law or executive action unconstitutional.

More detail:

  • Judicial review refers to the courts' ability to review any law to see if it violates any existing law or any statute of a state constitution or the US Constitution.  On the federal level, Marbury v. Madison (1803) is considered the landmark case for the Supreme Court asserting its authority of judicial review, to strike down a law as unconstitutional.
  • It was sort of a roundabout way in which the principle of judicial review was asserted by the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia by outgoing president John Adams -- one of a number of such last-minute appointments made by Adams.  When Thomas Jefferson came into office as president, he directed his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver many of the commission papers for appointees such as Marbury.  Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court directly to hear his case, as a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 had made possible.  The Court said that particular provision of the Judiciary Act was in conflict with Article III of the Constitution, and so they could not issue a specific ruling in Marbury's case (which they believe he should have won).  Nevertheless, in making their statement about the case, the Court established the principle of judicial review.
3 0
3 years ago
Match the countries to the descriptions of events during and after World War I. Germany Ottoman Empire Britain Russia leaders wa
vova2212 [387]

Here are your matches:

BRITAIN: leaders wanted to punish Germany but also wanted Germany to be economically strong

  • <em>In particular, Prime Minister David Lloyd-George wanted to avoid going too far in punishing Germany, as he felt that  weakening Germany would only hurt Britain, since  Germany and Britain had long had trade relationships prior to the war.</em>

RUSSIA:  pulled out of the war following a revolution

BRITAIN:  signed a peace treaty with Germany  

  • <em>Could possibly also list Russia - see note below.</em>

GERMANY AND OTTOMAN EMPIRE: was part of the Central powers

OTTOMAN EMPIRE:  ceased to exist following the war

GERMANY:  forced to pay large reparations and take blame for causing the war


A note to explain some items above:

  • The Treaty of Versailles was signed by the victorious Allies, including Great Britain.  They required the signature of Germany as the leader of the Central Powers.  Germany signed under protest because of the harsh terms of the treaty.
  • Russia also signed a treaty with Germany and the other Central Powers nations (Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria).  That was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which was the agreeement signed when Russia pulled out of the war.
  • The Central Powers included Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria.
4 0
4 years ago
Do you agree with the creation of the department of homeland security? After the 9/11 attacks
salantis [7]

Answer:

Yes, definitely. I think that it has created a much safer U.S. The 9/11 attacks were a real eye opener for future terrorists, and the department of homeland security has helped keep people safe.

Explanation:

Have a nice day!

6 0
3 years ago
How did having a food surplus change ancient peoples?
kupik [55]
The answer is D. Because back in ancient people did not know how to save food, Merchants could never become wealthier than their kings
5 0
3 years ago
Match the terms to their definition.
creativ13 [48]

Answer:

1. mystical - having direct communion with God

2. tariqa - meditation

3. dhikr - a Sufi order

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • what program of active government intervention addressed the great depression and how did it avert a social revolution in the U.
    8·1 answer
  • The first elected representative body in the english colonies was the
    15·1 answer
  • What events changed the balance of power on the european front
    7·1 answer
  • Michael pauses during his reading and realizes that he is not understanding the story.
    11·2 answers
  • Some leading investors and entrepreneurs during the rise of big business were
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following might be an example of economic dominance, which Europe, the United States, and Japan often wielded over
    13·2 answers
  • 1. political
    11·1 answer
  • Why did the Islamic empire break into three parts?
    8·1 answer
  • Immediately after world war 1, how were conditions in Japan different from conditions in germany
    6·2 answers
  • How are rocks made of sand ?
    12·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!