He actions taken by the presidents weren't<span> similar </span>in any respect<span>. The </span>nearest<span> similarity is that </span>each<span> began with </span>a technique<span> to encourage civilians to follow their plans. In Ford's </span>set up<span>, he </span>down the number of money<span> in circulation </span>whereas<span> carter increased interest rates and deregulated businesses. </span>I feel<span> Ford had </span>the higher<span> policy </span>as a result of there have been<span> no major jumps in expansion or </span>the task market<span>, </span>whereas<span> all of Carter's measures were ineffective</span>
I would say that this statement is false. Austria was not opposed to the idea of Germany uniting. What Austria opposed was the idea of Germany uniting under Prussian domination. Austria wanted Germany to unite, but it wanted to dominate the new, united country of Germany.
So i would say the answer is false
hope this helped:)
It was a water supply for the civilizations within the two rivers. The land was also very fertile and it made it easy to grow food. Lots of vegetation grew there.
<span>The articles created no separate executive department to carry out and enforce the acts of Congress and no national court system to interpret the meaning of laws.
To make a change to the Articles, it had to be decided unanimously by all states. Also, 9 out of the 13 states had to approve any major law before it was passed.
There was no standing army to protect the nation.
Each state could create its own foreign policy, including the passage of treaties.
Each state could create its own money and it might not be accepted in other states. The war left a huge debt, but the Articles didn't allow congress to collect taxes, only to ask for money from the states.
The central government could not regulate commerce between the states. </span>
