The answer is false because they were actually against it!
Answer:
The West demands trade with Japan
Perry, on behalf of the U.S. government, forced Japan to enter into trade with the United States and demanded a treaty permitting trade and the opening of Japanese ports to U.S. merchant ships.
Explanation:
hope I help you
<span>Slaves were not allowed to own a property, participate in social activities such as elections and were not given a humane treatment. Due to discrimination black skinned individuals who were deemed as free men were given the same restrictions. 2. How did free blacks respond to the slave codes? Slavery in the Americas introduced the troubling element of race into the master/slave relationship. For the first time in history, dark skin became the social marker of chattel slavery. And, as a means of justifying this new face which is a black face given to an ancient practice, the slavers and their supporters created a race-specific ideology of condemnation. Two and one-quarter centuries of human debasement and degradation denied slaves, not only their basic humanity, but also the opportunity to develop resources that could be used for their own empowerment and later bequeathed to future generations of blacks. Slavery harmed the slaves by creating capital deficiencies or developmental.</span>
The message that he was trying to get across to everybody, was that they were strong enough and capable enough to break free from England all together. Also, he was making it clear to the king of England that the new people of United states were not afraid to break free. His whole goal was to persuade the people that they should break free because, for one, the king was already taxing them to death, and two, the king still had control over them and he still had their loyalty even though they left. He wanted to make them realize how important it was for them to try to break free of Europe's control and to officially make the United States of America.
I hope this helps you. :)
The history of the American Revolution does not prove that owning small firearms is a means for citizens to defend themselves.
<h3 /><h3>Does the American Revolution support the Second Amendment?</h3>
Proponents of the Second Amendment had the notion that if civilians had small firearms, they would be able to defend themselves against tyrannical governments.
Yet this was not the case in the American Revolution because the people could not rely on small firearms to defend themselves against the British.
They had to rely on heavy artillery and arms which was what the British had as well.
Find out more on the Second Amendment at brainly.com/question/1750552.
#SPJ1
