John Ross, a Cherokee Chief, Lithographic & Print Colouring Establishment, copyright 1843. The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 28, 1830, authorizing the president to grant unsettled lands west of the Mississippi in exchange for Indian lands within existing state borders.
Many of washingtons men would no longer be obligated to fight due to the provisional enlistments that typically lasted for no longer than a year. Many of them had already decided they had done their part and since moral was low at this time, it was expected a lot of men would stop fighting on January 1st. Because of this, he wanted to attack while he still had the men to have more power and also boost morale among the men who would potentially be leaving
Answer:
no as it made room for rising powers after the Nazis
I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
The correct answer is: the people in the north who said that all African American people should be slaves.
