All categories

3 years ago

what kind of relationship did the native americans have with the federal government? (Indian removal act)

1 answer:

7 0

The U.S. Government used treaties as one means to displace Indians from their tribal lands, a mechanism that was strengthened with the Removal Act of 1830. In cases where this failed, the government sometimes violated both treaties and Supreme Court rulings to facilitate the spread of European Americans westward across the continent.<span>As the 19th century began, land-hungry Americans poured into the backcountry of the coastal South and began moving toward and into what would later become the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Since Indian tribes living there appeared to be the main obstacle to westward expansion, white settlers petitioned the federal government to remove them. Although Presidents </span>Thomas Jefferson<span> and </span>James Monroe<span> argued that the Indian tribes in the Southeast should exchange their land for lands west of the Mississippi River, they did not take steps to make this happen. Indeed, the first major transfer of land occurred only as the result of war.</span>

You might be interested in

Learning is something we need to continually pursue. <br> a. True<br> b. False

kirza4 [7]

This question is opinion based, so I can't promise the answer is what your teacher is looking for.

My answer is a. True. Without learning, we can't progress. Our progress in medicine, transportation, computing, etc. will stall.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Why would a drop in blood phph have an undesirable effect on the proximal histidine's function?

RoseWind [281]

A drop in pH would make protonation more likely, and a protonated proximal histidine would not be able to donate its electron density to the iron atom.

<h3>What is the role of proximal histidine in hemoglobin?</h3>

The first histidine that is bonded to Fe(2+) we call proximal, and the histidine that bonds last, to the oxygen, we call distal.

Histidine is an amino acid most people get from food. It's used in growth, repair of damaged tissues, and making blood cells.

It helps protect nerve cells. It's used by the body to make histamine.

In hemoglobin, the role of proximal histidine is to hold the heme group in the correct location on the hemoglobin chain.

The proximal histidine also pulls the iron in heme out of the plane of the heme molecule. This iron will be pulled back into the plane when it is oxygenated.

The proximal histidine strengthens the iron-imidazole bond and helps to stabilize the oxidoreductase in its higher oxidation (i.e. compounds I and II) states.

To learn more about histidine, refer

brainly.com/question/14115232

#SPJ4

3 0

2 years ago

Who has given the false Prophet according to the writer

larisa [96]

Answer:

umm hi which novel are you talking about??

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What are Kant's objections to taking the consequences of actions as being of "moral worth"? Can you find textual support in Kant

soldier1979 [14.2K]

Answer:

Kants believe that there actions that are good consequently to a lot of people.They may benefit a lot of people particularly in the society -- It does not make sense if the actions are not morally upright. Lucky, perhaps. But we can not say an action is lucky because they are gooo morally or they are unlucky because they are morally wrong

And utilitarians believe the proper way to evaluate an action is in the consequences. If more people derive more benefits than the other options, then it is morally good and that's all there is to be said.

For Kant, that is not all there is to be said.

evaluation of the moral worth of action by Utilitarian moral theories on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action.

Kant has an objection to moral evaluations of this sort. The reason behind is objection is that utilitarian theories devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit.

Kent alos objects because the utilitarian theories is bent on man inclination for happiness and pleasure not by universal moral laws.

Explanation:

For Kant, that is not all there is to be said.

evaluation of the moral worth of action by Utilitarian moral theories on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action.

Kant has an objection to moral evaluations of this sort. The reason behind is objection is that utilitarian theories devalue the individuals it is supposed to benefit.

Kent alos objects because the utilitarian theories is bent on man inclination for happiness and pleasure not by universal moral laws.

8 0

3 years ago

Why do you think it was more common to lay siege to a castle rather than attempt to scale the walls?

trapecia [35]

If you lay siege to the castle you don't risk the lives of your men and loss of equipment, You can just "wait it out" - the castle is going to run our of resources and likely surrender. So if you can afford to wait, laying siege is a better idea.

5 0

3 years ago