Answer:Early in the 19th century, while the rapidly-growing United States expanded into the lower South, white settlers faced what they considered an obstacle. This area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw and Seminole nations. These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory.
Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.
From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. This was a period of voluntary Indian migration, however, and only a small number of Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws actually moved to the new lands.
Explanation:
To protect settlers in New Mexico the Spanish paid Comanche and Navajo allies to attack the Apaches.
Answer:
The answer is detailed in the explanation;
Explanation:
<u><em>
Dear Sir, Jhon Locke;
</em></u>
With my sincere words I do not intend to change his ideals of reform but I do intend to be heard on the basis of the experience of the human being and what characterizes him, it is well known that the man without law is an irrational being incapable of restraining his impulses and actions Likewise, ambition, greed for power causes divisions and doubts to be sown and the fracture of power occurs, that is why an absolute monarchy where absolute power and responsibility falls on only that supreme being already chosen of impartial way to impartially govern all kinds of people without any preference to either side, for me it is and surely being the ideal form of government.
<em><u>Respected Sir; Thomas hobbe
:</u></em>
Considering his arguments, I find a heartfelt contradiction; if the power corrupts the human being who by natural tendency is given to ambition and greed; How can absolute power and responsibility be left to govern and educate an entire people in the hands of one man?
Really, in an absolute monarchy there is no freedom, there is no democracy, we need to work as a team to help each other to balance power, although it is true that two heads think more than one, being in a position of responsibility and knowing that we have that answering for our acts before the laws or branches of power causes us to be more cautious when making decisions that could affect our nation, our actions have consequences and a bad control of absolute power undoubtedly brings total chaos.
Answer:
The jews revalted aginst rome
Explanation:
ANSWER: C
(Empire, kingdom, republic.)
All variations of their democracy.
