The correct answer to this open question is the following.
The two interpretations of the economic history of the early modern period differ most strongly concerning who must regulate the economy in the countries and the role of the government in regulating the market.
Here we are talking about the two modern interpretations of economic history: Capitalism and Socialism.
Capitalist established that it is the free market that defines the economy. This free enterprise system allows companies to freely compete to grow and prosper. In this economic system, the government has minimum intervention in the economy.
On the other hand, Socialism states that it is the workers who had the right to control the means of production. Karl Marx and Federick Engels are the two most important authors of Socialism.
The Monroe Doctrine is the denomination given to the approach that the US adopted in foreign policy in 1823, explicitly stating its oposition to European colonialism in America. The US expressed its intentions by claiming how any attempt undertaken by a European nation which aimed to gain control over an American territory would be regarded as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the US", and the US would respond to such offense in consequence.
<u>The only manner in which the Monroe Doctrine kept a certain sense of neutrality was the fact that the US would not interfere in those American territories that were already under European control. </u>
Answer:
Slave labour was integral to early settlement of the colonies, which needed more people for labour and other work.
The first and second questions should be answered by you according to your classes. You should think of: how was President Andrew Jackson elected (1828)? What was he famous for before his candidacy? And according to this, what could be expected from his speech? Jackson was famous for his military victories over Indian tribes and for working actively on the occupation of previous Indian land. Thus his defense of the Indian Removal and his feelings of superiority over Indians wasn’t surprising.
On his opinions about the United States being better in 1830, it is due to an authoritarian view according to which the ways of the Indian’s – who preferred their territories covered with forests – were inferior to the ways of the Americans’, supposedly full of cities, Art, happy people, liberty, civilization, and religion.
Since President Jackson wasn’t thinking from the point of view of the Indians, for whom the relationship with their territory was fundamental, he thought Indians would be happy being left in peace away from the whites and free to live their own way.
He also thought Indians would be glad about this policy for believing it was “kind and generous” as the Indian Removal Act compromised to pay for the Indian’s immigration and for their first year in new territory. That was an offer, he said, “our own people would gladly embrace… on such conditions”, referring to the whites occupying lands east of the Mississipi River.
In order to predict what Elias Boudinot said about Indian Removal you should remember that he was a member of the Cherokee Nation where he was part of a minority who believed their nation would have more chances of surviving if they integrated themselves into the American society. This explains why Boudinot was in favor of Indians making treaties with the United States and willingly giving up on their lands.
Answer:
uuuh i think its uh 39
Explanation:
cus cat plus dog is 57 i think
