Answer:
The establishment of Fort Gibson and Fort Towson benefited the United States. For example, the US government established Fort Gibson to maintain peace between the Osage and the Cherokee tribes. Peace between these tribes was a good idea since the United States had plans to move even more Native Americans to this area in the future. And once those relocations started, following the passage of the Indian Removal Act in 1830, the forts protected Native American tribes that the government moved to Indian Territory. The government built roads and provided provisions to the people who immigrated there. Fort Towson served to protect the southern border of the United States, and it was also a stop for settlers who were heading into Texas. Both forts helped the area stay safe and stable.
Explanation:
bec its the answer
Answer:
The use of toxic chemicals as weapons dates back thousands of years, but the first large scale use of chemical weapons was during World War I.[1][2] They were primarily used to demoralize, injure, and kill entrenched defenders, against whom the indiscriminate and generally very slow-moving or static nature of gas clouds would be most effective. The types of weapons employed ranged from disabling chemicals, such as tear gas, to lethal agents like phosgene, chlorine, and mustard gas. This chemical warfare was a major component of the first global war and first total war of the 20th century. The killing capacity of gas was limited, with about ninety thousand fatalities from a total of 1.3 million casualties caused by gas attacks. Gas was unlike most other weapons of the period because it was possible to develop countermeasures, such as gas masks. In the later stages of the war, as the use of gas increased, its overall effectiveness diminished. The widespread use of these agents of chemical warfare, and wartime advances in the composition of high explosives, gave rise to an occasionally expressed view of World War I as "the chemist's war" and also the era where weapons of mass destruction were created.[3][4]
The use of poison gas by all major belligerents throughout World War I constituted war crimes as its use violated the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which prohibited the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare.[5][6] Widespread horror and public revulsion at the use of gas and its consequences led to far less use of chemical weapons by combatants during World War II.
Explanation:
<u>Explanation:</u>
1. In the South, "whites" limited the power of blacks in the South by them from voting, serving on juries, or to even travel or work freely.
2. An example of such unfair/unethical action is how many states used the "grandfather clause " to limit the power of the black voter. They said blacks could not vote unless their grandfather had voted; which was impossible for the majority.
3. In the North even though they enjoyed some freedom compared to other regions they faced this discrimination;
- they were excluded from public transportation,
- they were excluded from schools and
- even in churches, they were excluded.
4. The West Indians faced discrimination here.
Focusing on the inner workings of the First Crusade in a way that no other work has done, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading delves into the Crusade's organization, its finances, and the division of authority and responsibility among its leaders and their relationships with one another and with their subordinates.
In the year 1095, Pope Urban II initiated what is known today as the First Crusade. His summons of the lay knights to the faith between 1095 and 1096 was Urban II's personal response to an appeal that had reached him from eastern Christians, the Pope referred to the struggle ahead as Christ's own war, to be fought in accordance with God's will and intentions. It was, too, called a war of liberation, designed to free the church and city of Jerusalem from oppression and pillage by the Muslims while liberating western Church from the errors into which it had fallen.
In this classic work, presented here with a new introduction, one of the world's most renowned crusade historians approaches this central topic of medieval history with freshness and impeccable research. Through the vivid presentation of a wide range of European chronicles and charter collections, Jonathan Riley-Smith provides a striking illumination of crusader motives and responses and a thoughtful analysis of the mechanisms that made this expedition successful.
