Answer:
The correct answer is D. It is not correct to try to convince the other person to agree with you when having a meaningful political conversation.
Explanation:
When talking about political issues, they often deal with controversial issues that can turn friendly talk into heated discussion. Therefore, as a way to prevent this, there are certain guidelines that must be taken into account.
Thus, not shouting, speaking personally and contemplating the opinion of the other party are fundamental criteria when it comes to having a serious and friendly political debate. In this way, cordiality regulates the content of the talk, and the acceptance of the thought different from the other (without the need to share it) gives legitimacy to the idea of the other person.
On the other hand, if in the conversation one of the parties tries to convince the other of its ideology, the conversation will most likely fail. This is so because when trying to convince, the other person's belief or conviction is discredited, a question that many people can take as a personal insult. Therefore, it is totally inadvisable to carry out this type of actions.
Answer:
The correct answer is B) Other country's possessions
Explanation:
By then 19th century, America was still a very small country compared to modern borders. However, many American politicians believed in a 'Manifest Destiny' in order to expand the country from coast to coast.
Small frontier settlements as far as California already existed and the idea was encompass all of the land between Canada in the north and Mexico in the South.
However, the major obstacle for this were the various North American possessions of other countries.
One example was of Louisiana, a part of land in North America owned by the French Empire. At the time, this was larger than the rest of the United States. Eventually the French agreed to sell it.
Spain was another major land holder in North America including the large possession of Florida.
A.They presented witnesses to make false statements
Answer:
Indian removal was a forced migration in the 19th century whereby Native Americans were forced by the United States government to leave their ancestral homelands in the eastern United States to lands west of the Mississippi River, specifically to a designated Indian Territory (roughly, modern Oklahoma).[1][2][3] The Indian Removal Act, the key law that forced the removal of the Indians, was signed by Andrew Jackson in 1830. Jackson took a hard line on Indian removal, but the law was put into effect primarily under the Martin van Buren administration.[4][5]
Indian removal was a consequence of actions first by European settlers to North America in the colonial period, then by the United States government and its citizens until the mid-20th century.[6][7] The policy traced its direct origins to the administration of James Monroe, though it addressed conflicts between European Americans and Native Americans that had been occurring since the 17th century, and were escalating into the early 19th century as white settlers were continually pushing westward.
Explanation:
What happened to many Native Americans as Americans pushed further west into Indian territory?
