With the establishment of trade towns such as Savannah, the Georgia Colony was able to use the natural resources and raw materials available to develop trade in crops, such as, tobacco, cotton, rice, indigo, lumber, furs, fish, pottery, sugar and farm products.
Mainly these were products of slave plantations. The colonists did not like the Mercantilism system as it is a system designed to benefit mainly the country that has established the colones. it was designed to benefit their home country, Great Britain, in that the colonies were to provide the raw materials, then shipping them to Britain to make finished products and them having to buy the finished products.
To enforce mercantilism in the colonies, the British passed a series of laws restricting what the colonist could do, such as requiring the colonist to only transport goods using British ships. In time, the colonist rejected this, and resorted to smuggling from other countries. When the British began to crack down on smuggling, the colonists naturally resisted.
Source: the Foundation for Economic Education
Answer:
C.) While both the Ottoman Empire and Western European states relied heavily on forced conversions to expand and maintain their empires, the Ottoman Empire remained more religiously tolerant than the Western European empires.
Explanation:
I got this question right on the first try. Here's why I knew it was C. You would need to have some knowledge about the Ottoman Empire's role of religion. I don't know if it says in the passage, so if you do find it, then give me a heads up. Remember, how did the Ottoman Empire treat the minorities? Did they force persecution/conversion to Islam? Well, not really. Although they did develop the devshirme system, it was kinda of a force conversion because the children had to give up their Christian belief, but it was seen as an opportunity. They weren't punished, so answer A is not right. So they did practice religious tolerance. Also the Ottoman Empire tried to expand the empire to make it bigger as well. There wasn't any religious wars carried out the Ottoman Empire, and answer B does not make sense. Where in the passage does it say about those two empires having efforts of doing mass conversions. Look at Source 2. Sorry if this explanation is long, but I hope this helps :)
Answer:How is the Bill of Rights contained in the Texas Constitution different from the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution? Question options: The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution states that rights it defines cannot be taken away from citizens. The Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution states that the rights it defines cannot be taken away Texans. The Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution guarantees rights to those accused of a crime, while the United States Constitution Bill of Rights does not. The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution guarantees rights to those accused of a crime, while the Bill of Rights in the Texas Constitution does not.
Explanation:
Answer:
Answer below because its longer :)
Explanation:
When they say "strong groups" they mean factions. These are interest groups basically. The framers of the constitution recognize that factions are inevitable but by creating a stronger central government, we can balance these factions and form a better government.
Remember, the federalists used these papers to support the new constitution. So this instilled some fear about the out comes of a weak central government that the Articles of confederation had.
Hope this is somewhat correct or useful! :D
The opposite of professional military force is a civilian. hope that helped
