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
Lina20 [59]
3 years ago
6

Who was the commander of the Mexican forces

History
1 answer:
Harrizon [31]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

Your Answer is here

Explanation:

At the Battle of the Alamo, (near San Antonio de Bexar) fought on Feb.23 - March 6, 1836, the Mexican Army was commanded by President General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna.

You might be interested in
Who did lincon send home after the battle of antietam for failing to go after the confederate army?
diamong [38]
The answer to this problem question would be Farragut
4 0
3 years ago
HELP PLEASEEEEE ASAPP !!
valina [46]

Answer:

A

Explanation:

Redefined the south completely

8 0
3 years ago
What were some complaints about the Louisiana purchase
e-lub [12.9K]

Answer:

The general opinion of many Americans at the time of the purchase was that Jefferson was being hypocritical by going through with it. Jefferson was known to have a strict interpretation of the Constitution and believed the president only had the powers the Constitution gave him. Since there was no Constitutional precedent for buying land to add territory to the United States, there was theoretically no Constitutional authority for the president to buy the land.

Many of those in the Federalist party (the opposing party to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans) believed that he would have objected on Constitutional grounds if any of them had tried to do the same thing. Therefore, the Federalists were very much opposed to the purchase. They also believed that by buying land from France, they would alienate Great Britain, whom they wanted as a close ally.

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was one reason why the Emancipation Proclamation was able to benefit the North's cause?
Vitek1552 [10]

One big reason:  It gave the North an additional, powerful reason to fight and win the war.

Additional reasons:  It gave the Union Army another source of soldiers, and it kept foreign powers from allying with the Confederacy.

<u>Historical context/details</u>:

President Abraham Lincoln issued The Emancipation Proclamation as an executive order on January 1, 1863. The executive order declared freedom for slaves in  ten Confederate states in rebellion against the Union.  It also allowed that freed slaves could join the Union Army to fight for the cause of reuniting the nation and ending slavery.  As summarized by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, "The Proclamation broadened the goals of the Union war effort; it made the eradication of slavery into an explicit Union goal, in addition to the reuniting of the country."

While Lincoln personally was strongly against slavery, he had to tread carefully in his role as president and commander-in-chief.  The Emancipation Proclamation was carefully worded in order to retain the support of four border slave states, which remained in the Union though they were states that permitted slavery, were  Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and Kentucky.   Lincoln wanted to keep those states loyal to the Union cause.

The Emancipation Proclamation was also a way of blocking foreign support for the Confederate cause.  According to the American Battlefield Trust, "Britain and France had considered supporting the Confederacy in order to expand their influence in the Western Hemisphere. However, many Europeans were against slavery."  Britain had abolished slavery in its territories in 1833.  France had put a final end to slavery in its territories in 1848.  So when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, it also served as a foreign policy action to keep European powers out of the US Civil War, according to Steve Jones, professor of history at Southwestern Adventist University.

6 0
3 years ago
According to the treaty, would the Soviet Union have been allowed to join the European Union? Yes, because the USSR was a single
RUDIKE [14]

The answer is: no, because they were not democratic

The soviet union was notoriously known for adopting an authoritarian state as its form of government.

They put total control on the media, preventing  anyone from voicing negative opinion about the government. They also utilize their military to execute activists who threaten government reputation. such actions heavily contradict the democratic value that held by members of European union.

6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which of these forces did not encourage western settlement?
    9·2 answers
  • Which statement about the red scare of the 1920s is true
    9·1 answer
  • Which branch of government most directly affects you on daily basis?
    15·2 answers
  • Who was President at the time of the Louisiana Purchase?
    12·2 answers
  • Description of kansas nebraska act
    5·1 answer
  • Which 1896 Supreme Court case resulted in the “separate but equal” doctrine?
    9·1 answer
  • Age of Encounter: Comparing Journeys
    8·1 answer
  • Which of these provisions was included in the treaty of versailles (1919)?
    6·1 answer
  • Discuss the main provisions of the Civil Code of 1804
    10·1 answer
  • Did native Americans eat pork chops in 1491?
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!