Answer:
i had this qustion in my class and here was my two ansers that i got correct.
1. the souths econmy remained agricultural and burdened by dedt.
2. the nation was still deeply divided socially and politically.
Explanation:
sry this is 5 days late hope this helped!
Answer:Under the separation of powers, each branch of government has a unique function. The legislative branch makes the laws and has the power to pass, change, and repeal laws. Article I of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch (the House of Representatives and the Senate).
Explanation:
Answer
1. It set in a process that led to displacement, removal and relocation of the natives
2. Mining rested on the white American talent for claiming legitimacy
3. Created a rapid urbanization kind of settlement
Explanation
There was a friction between miners and Indians during the rush for Gold mining that resulted into the displacement of the natives. Mining in California rested on the white American talent for claiming legitimacy. This is to say that most of them were newcomers yet it did not prevent them from claiming legitimacy of the place as occupants ignoring natives that had the right to local resources. Mining in the west brought concentrated populations, where the mining patterns of settlements turned out to be the future settlement pattern of the region.
Answer:
I hope it helps u.
Explanation:
Arms races have generated a great deal of interest for a variety of reasons. They are widely believed to have significant consequences for states' security, but agreement stops there. In the debate over their consequences, one side holds that arms races increase the probability of war by undermining military stability and straining political relations. The opposing view holds that engaging in an arms race is often a state's best option for avoiding war when faced with an aggressive adversary. Debate over the causes of arms races is just as divided. One school believes that arms races are primarily rational responses to external threats and opportunities, whereas arms race skeptics believe that arms buildups are usually the product of a mixture of internal, domestic interests, including those of the scientists involved in research and development (R&D), the major producers of weapons systems, and the military services that will operate them. The policy implications of these contending views are equally contradictory; critics see arms control as a way to reduce the probability of war and rein in domestic interests that are distorting the state's security policy, and proponents argue that military competition is most likely to protect the state's international interests and preserve peace.
Arms buildups and arms races also play a prominent role in international relations (IR) theory. Building up arms is one of a state's three basic options for acquiring the military capabilities it requires to achieve its international goals; the other two are gaining allies and cooperating with its adversary to reduce threats. In broad terms, choosing between more competitive and more cooperative combinations of these options is among the most basic decisions a state must make, and it is often the most important.
Mark me as brainlist answer,
Have a nice day,
Thank you ☺