1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
shutvik [7]
3 years ago
12

Creek felt pressured by Georgians to leave their land. Describe the TWO views of the Creek Nation.

History
1 answer:
NikAS [45]3 years ago
4 0

The Creek nation was pressured by Georgians to give them their land. In 1773 Gerorgia purchased part of their land by forgiven the debt Creeks had acrued with them. From then on, with the American Revolution, Creeks were divided between the American and British sides. The Upper Creeks, influenced by Cherokee indians took the English side, while the Lower Creeks took Americans'.

In 1786 Creeks declared war on Georgia for the lands ceaded in Augusta Treaty. In 1832 Creeks signed a contract to finnaly leave Georgia to Indian Territory and after a brief conflict in 1836, they left now Georgia's territory to begin a new life in Indian Territory.

You might be interested in
Who was William Westmoreland?
natali 33 [55]

Answer:

William Childs Westmoreland was a United States Army general, most notably commander of United States forces during the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1968. He served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1968 to 1972.

:)

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did president Polk compromise with Britain over Oregon
insens350 [35]
Polk did not really want to fight Britain. Instead, in 1846, he agreed to a compromise. Oregon was divided at latitude 49°N. Britain got the lands north of <span>the line, and the United States got the lands south of the line</span>
8 0
3 years ago
After world war ii, the only nation that could rival the united states was:
nydimaria [60]
Russia is one of the United States Rivals since they both have the power of super heroes and have a lot of power because of their military and there highly exclusive weapons. Also back in world war 2 the Soviet Union was the name Russia went by back then
6 0
3 years ago
In which state would a pro-immigration message most likely have worked more effectively in 2010 than in 1970?
Serga [27]

Answer:The year 1965 is often cited as a turning point in the history of US immigration, but what happened in the ensuing years is not well understood. Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act passed in that year repealed the national origins quotas, which had been enacted during the 1920s in a deliberate attempt to limit the entry of Southern and Eastern European immigrants—or more specifically Jews from the Russian Pale and Catholics from Poland and Italy, groups at the time deemed “unassimilable.” The quotas supplemented prohibitions already in place that effectively banned the entry of Asians and Africans. The 1965 amendments were intended to purge immigration law of its racist legacy by replacing the old quotas with a new system that allocated residence visas according to a neutral preference system based on family reunification and labor force needs. The new system is widely credited with having sparked a shift in the composition of immigration away from Europe toward Asia and Latin America, along with a substantial increase in the number of immigrants.

Indeed, after 1965 the number of immigrants entering the country did increase, and the flows did come to be dominated by Asians and Latin Americans. Although the amendments may have opened the door to greater immigration from Asia, however, the surge in immigration from Latin America occurred in spite of rather than because of the new system. Countries in the Western Hemisphere had never been included in the national origins quotas, nor was the entry of their residents prohibited as that of Africans and Asians had been. Indeed, before 1965 there were no numerical limits at all on immigration from Latin America or the Caribbean, only qualitative restrictions. The 1965 amendments changed all that, imposing an annual cap of 120,000 on entries from the Western Hemisphere. Subsequent amendments further limited immigration from the region by limiting the number of residence visas for any single country to just 20,000 per year (in 1976), folding the separate hemispheric caps into a worldwide ceiling of 290,000 visas (in 1978), and then reducing the ceiling to 270,000 visas (in 1980). These restrictions did not apply to spouses, parents, and children of US citizens, however.

Thus the 1965 legislation in no way can be invoked to account for the rise in immigration from Latin America. Nonetheless, Latin American migration did grow. Legal immigration from the region grew from a total of around 459,000 during the decade of the 1950s to peak at 4.2 million during the 1990s, by which time it made up 44 percent of the entire flow, compared with 29 percent for Asia, 14 percent for Europe, 6 percent for Africa, and 7 percent for the rest of the world (US Department of Homeland Security 2012). The population of unauthorized immigrants from Latin America also rose from near zero in 1965 to peak at around 9.6 million in 2008, accounting for around 80 percent of the total present without authorization (Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker 2011; Wasem 2011). How this happened is a complicated tale of unintended consequences, political opportunism, bureaucratic entrepreneurship, media guile, and most likely a healthy dose of racial and ethnic prejudice. In this article, we lay out the sequence of events that culminated in record levels of immigration from Latin America during the 1990s. We focus particularly on the case of Mexico, which accounted for two-thirds of legal immigration during the decade and for three-quarters of all illegal migration from the region.

Explanation:

5 0
1 year ago
Every day wears out the little remains of kindred between us and them, and can there be any reason to hope, that as the relation
Lady_Fox [76]
Paine's use of the phrases listed above suggest that his purpose is to ENCOURAGE THE COLONIES TO FORGE AHEAD WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF THE BRITISH.
Paine's choice of words shows that the relationship between the colony and the British has already wear out and there is no hope of rekindling the old flame of love that existed between them. Thus, Paine's words called the people to the realization that they have to make do without the British.
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why was being a slave trader such unpleasant job
    11·2 answers
  • Why did supporters of the established churches regard the great awakening with unease?
    9·1 answer
  • Meiosis is the mechanism used for producing gametes in multicellular organisms whereas it does not play any role in unicellular
    7·1 answer
  • answer quickly pls sksksksks (LOOK AT PICTURE) How did Russell Means influence the course of events for the rights of Native Ame
    13·2 answers
  • How did the election of rutherford<br> b. hayes in 1876 affect reconstruction?
    15·1 answer
  • 14. According to President Wilson, how would the League of Nations
    9·1 answer
  • How did Madison's argument influence the ratification of the United States Constitution?
    15·1 answer
  • How did settlers pay back patroons?
    8·1 answer
  • PLZ HELP ME IM STUCK ON THIS QUESTION, AND IM TRYING TO COMPLETE MY MIDTERM
    11·1 answer
  • How many states were in the union when edison gave this quiz in the 1920s?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!