The purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act was it prohibited any contract, trust, or conspiracy to a foreign trade.
Hope this helped!
Answer:
c. The Syrian Desert did not have enough good farmland.
Explanation:
The Akkadian Empire was a great kingdom of Mesopotamia formed from the conquests of Sargon I of Akkad. It maintained its maximum splendor in the XXII century BCE (2334 to 2192 BC) in which five monarchs succeeded each other: Sargon himself, his sons Rimush and Manishutusu, his grandson Naram-Sin and his son, Sharkalisharri who ruled for 141 years.
The dominions of the Akkadian Empire extended to the entire basin of the Tigris and Euphrates, Elam, Syria and - according to the inscriptions - even further, to Lebanon and the Mediterranean coast. According to these inscriptions, incursions into Anatolia and the interior of the Zagros Mountains would be made and the empire would control the trade of the Persian Gulf towards «Magan» (possibly Oman) and the Indus Valley region.
The empire reached its maximum territorial extension: in the western limits it incorporated the regions of Aleppo (in present-day Syria), and the surroundings of Tripoli (in the Canaanite Mediterranean coast of present-day Lebanon); in the Orientals it conquered Susa and, in the north, it expanded by Anatolia. It is a combination of steppe and desert that is located in the north of the Arabian peninsula and covers more than 500,000 km2 in eastern Syria and Jordan, and in western Iraq. The desert is very rocky and flat. Due to its scarcity of resources and its extreme climate, it is a region little inhabited by life. For this reason, the Syrian desert did not have enough good farmland which limited the expansion of the empire of Sargon of Akkad.
Coup d'etat, the Hundred Days, and the Battle of Waterloo
"Was _______ a hero or hypocrite?" could be asked about almost any figure in history. Human beings are complicated creatures who live amid conflicting situations. Rarely do you find anyone who is totally consistent in every point of view they hold and every action that they take.
In the case of Thomas Jefferson, the "hero or hypocrite" question tends to focus on his ideals, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence (which he authored), that all people "<span>are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- as contrasted with the fact that Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and fathered several children by Sally Hemings, one of his slaves.
Jefferson indeed was heroic as one of America's founding fathers to set this nation on a course of liberty and justice for all. But slavery was deeply embedded in the colonies and not something easily or quickly undone. Jefferson's slaves were those which he had inherited from his father or acquired by marriage to his wife, Martha (whose family also owned slaves). Jefferson had criticized the British for sponsoring the slave trade. He also led the effort to have the state of Virginia ban the importing of slaves in 1778. Jefferson did have plans for the emancipating of slaves, seen in a bill he proposed as governor of Virginia in 1779, but recommended emancipation as a gradual process due to the complexities of the situation.
So, "hero or hypocrite"? The answer to that is not quick or easy. Jefferson had ideas and plans to address the slavery situation, but recognized the need to proceed gradually in order to make such a transition without great turmoil affecting the new country.</span>
Answer:
<h2>direct democracy</h2><h2>Issues and controversies</h2><h2>Discussions on direct-democratic institutions deal with several issues. The strongest normative grounds for direct democracy are the democratic principles of popular sovereignty, political equality, and all the arguments for participative democracy that support the idea that all citizens should have the right not only to elect representatives but also to vote on policy issues in referenda. Since assembly democracy cannot be an option in modern societies (outside Switzerland), direct-democratic institutions are regarded not as a full-scale alternative to representative democracy but as a supplement to or counterweight within democratic systems with major representative features. Nevertheless, the institutional difference and competition between representative and direct-democratic processes lie at the core of the controversy whether direct democracy contributes to undermining representative democracy or can offer enrichments of democracy.</h2>
<h3>Explanation:</h3>
<h3>correct me if I'm wrong</h3><h3>please brainless my answer</h3>
