<span>The term "Seminole" is a derivative of "cimarron" which means "wild men" in
Spanish. The original Seminoles were given this name because they were
Indians who had escaped from slavery in the British-controlled northern
colonies. When they came to Florida, they were not called Seminoles as
they were actually Creeks, Indians of Muskogee derivation. The Muskogean
tribes comprised the Mississipian culture which were temple-mound
builders. Among the Muskogean tribes were the Creeks, Hitichis and
Yamasees of Georgia, the Apalachees of Florida, the Alabamas and Mobiles
of Alabama, and the Choctaws, Chickasaws and Houmas of Mississippi.
<span> The Origins of the Seminoles
The original Seminoles came to Florida because it was controlled by the
Spanish, who had no interest in returning slaves to the British. They
were mostly Lower Creeks who spoke the Mikasuki language, but other
Indians, including Yuchis, Yamasees and Choctaws who had confronted
Ponce de Leon and DeSoto, also joined the tribe in their trek to
northern Florida from Georgia during the early 1700s.
</span> By this time, many of the tribes in Florida, including the Tequestas,
Calusas, Apalachees, Timucans and others, had been decimated by the
Spanish presence, either in battles or by diseases such as smallpox. Out
of an estimated 100,000 native Americans that occupied Florida during
the 1500s, less than 50 survived.
In 1767, Upper Creeks from Alabama, who spoke the Muskogee language,
settled in the Tampa area. Shortly after this, in 1771, the first
recorded usage of the name "Seminole" to denote an actual tribe was
recorded. In 1778, the Seminoles were joined by more Lower Creeks and a
few Apalachees.
<span> The Five Civilized Tribes
Together with the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks and Cherokees, the
Seminoles were called "The Five Civilized Tribes." The name was coined
because these tribes in particular adopted many ways of the white
civilization. They lived in cabins or houses, wore clothes similar to
the white man and often became Christians.
</span></span>
Answer:
Trade declined at the start of the outbreak and then grew toward the end.
Explanation:
Calvin Coolidge's economic policies during the early 1920s helped people forget about the teapot dome scandal.
<h3>What was the teapot dome scandal?</h3>
This was the Bribery scandal that had to do with the president of the United States at the time.
The president was Warren Harding. It was an oil reserve scandal that took place in Wyoming.
Read more on Calvin Coolidge here: brainly.com/question/1799809
#SPJ1
Question- Why did the Constitution allow Slavery?
Answer- On Monday, Senator Bernie Sanders told his audience at Liberty University that the United States “in many ways was created” as a nation “from way back on racist principles.” Not everyone agreed. The historian Sean Wilentz took to The New York Times to write that Bernie Sanders—and a lot of his colleagues—have it all wrong about the founding of the United States. The Constitution that protected slavery for three generations, until a devastating war and a constitutional amendment changed the game, was actually antislavery because it didn’t explicitly recognize “property in humans.” Lincoln certainly said so, and cited the same passage from Madison’s notes that Wilentz used. But does that make it so? And does it gainsay Sanders’s inelegant but apparently necessary voicing of what ought to be obvious, what David Brion Davis, Wilentz’s scholarly mentor and my own, wrote back in 1966—that the nation was “in many ways” founded on racial slavery? If the absence of an ironclad guarantee of a right to property in men really “quashed” the slaveholders, it should be apparent in the rest of the document, by which the nation was actually governed. But of the 11 clauses in the Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10 protect slave property and the powers of masters. Only one, the international slave-trade clause, points to a possible future power by which, after 20 years, slavery might be curtailed—and it didn’t work out that way at all. The three-fifths clause, which states that three-fifths of “all other persons” (i.e. slaves) will be counted for both taxation and representation, was a major boon to the slave states. This is well known; it’s astounding to see Wilentz try to pooh-pooh it. No, it wasn’t counting five-fifths, but counting 60 percent of slaves added enormously to slave-state power in the formative years of the republic. By 1800, northern critics called this phenomenon “the slave power” and called for its repeal. With the aid of the second article of the Constitution, which numbered presidential electors by adding the number of representatives in the House to the number of senators, the three-fifths clause enabled the elections of plantation masters Jefferson in 1800 and Polk in 1844. Just as importantly, the tax liability for three-fifths of the slaves turned out to mean nothing. Sure the federal government could pass a head tax, but it almost never did. It hardly could when the taxes had to emerge from the House, where the South was 60 percent overrepresented. So the South gained political power, without having to surrender much of anything in exchange. Indeed, all the powers delegated to the House—that is, the most democratic aspects of the Constitution—were disproportionately affected by what critics quickly came to call “slave representation.” These included the commerce clause—a compromise measure that gave the federal government power to regulate commerce, but only at the price of giving disproportionate power to slave states. And as if that wasn’t enough, Congress was forbidden from passing export duties—at a time when most of the value of what the U.S. exported lay in slave-grown commodities. This was one of the few things (in addition to regulating the slave trade for 20 years) that Congress was forbidden to do. Slavery and democracy in the U.S. were joined at the 60-percent-replaced hip. Another clause in Article I allowed Congress to mobilize “the Militia” to “suppress insurrections”—again, the House with its disproportionate votes would decide whether a slave rebellion counted as an insurrection. Wilentz repeats the old saw that with the rise of the northwest, the slave power’s real bastion was the Senate. Hence the battles over the admission of slave and free states that punctuated the path to Civil War. But this reads history backwards from the 1850s, not forward from 1787.
