Answer:
irst supporting and then repudiating Mexican regimes during the period 1910-1920.[1]
Explanation:
The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution was varied and seemingly contradictory, first supporting and then repudiating Mexican regimes during the period 1910-1920.[1] For both economic and political reasons, the U.S. government generally supported those who occupied the seats of power, whether they held that power legitimately or not. A clear exception was the French Intervention in Mexico, when the U.S. supported the beleaguered liberal government of Benito Juárez at the time of the American Civil War (1861-1865). Prior to Woodrow Wilson's inauguration on March 4, 1913, the U.S. Government focused on just warning the Mexican military that decisive action from the U.S. military would take place if lives and property of U.S. nationals living in the country were endangered.[2] President William Howard Taft sent more troops to the US-Mexico border but did not allow them to intervene in the conflict,[3][4] a move which Congress opposed.[4] Twice during the Revolution, the U.S. sent troops into Mexico.
The Virginia Company of London was a joint-stock company chartered by King James I in 1606 to establish a colony in North America. Such a venture allowed the Crown to reap the benefits of colonization—natural resources, new markets for English goods, leverage against the Spanish—without bearing the costs.
Answer:
From the era of Reconstruction to the end of the 19th century, the United States underwent an economic transformation marked by the maturing of the industrial economy, the rapid expansion of big business, the development of large-scale agriculture, and the rise of national labor unions and industrial conflict.
Explanation:
Depends. What war are you talking about? If it's WW1, then it's because everyone was stupid at the time and thought their enemies did it and one thing led to another.
What do you mean by 16 and 17????????
