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
hammer [34]
3 years ago
14

You are a scout in the 1830s who makes a living by guiding settlers to Oregon. Write a two-paragraph "advertisement" telling peo

ple why they should move to Oregon and why they should choose you to guide them.
History
2 answers:
Lesechka [4]3 years ago
5 0

In the 1830s, several parties of Americans traveled to Oregon, further establishing the Oregon Trail. Many of these emigrants were missionaries seeking to convert natives to Christianity. Jason Lee was the first, traveling in Nathaniel Jarvis Wyeth's party in 1833 and establishing the Oregon Mission in the Willamette Valley; the Whitmans and Spaldings arrived in 1836, establishing the Whitman Mission east of the Cascades. In 1839 the Peoria Party embarked for Oregon from Illinois.

In 1841, wealthy master trapper and entrepreneur Ewing Young died without a will, and there was no system to probate his estate. A probate government was proposed at a meeting after Young's funeral. Doctor Ira Babcock of Jason Lee's Methodist Mission was elected Supreme Judge. Babcock chaired two meetings in 1842 at Champoeg (halfway between Lee's mission and Oregon City) to discuss wolves and other animals of contemporary concern. These meetings were precursors to an all-citizen meeting in 1843, which instituted a provisional government headed by an executive committee made up of David Hill, Alanson Beers, and Joseph Gale. This government was the first acting public government of the Oregon Country before American annexation.

34kurt3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

In the 1830s, several parties of Americans traveled to Oregon, further establishing the Oregon Trail. Many of these emigrants were missionaries seeking to convert natives to Christianity. Jason Lee was the first, traveling in Nathaniel Jarvis Wyeth's party in 1833 and establishing the Oregon Mission in the Willamette Valley; the Whitmans and Spaldings arrived in 1836, establishing the Whitman Mission east of the Cascades. In 1839 the Peoria Party embarked for Oregon from Illinois.

In 1841, wealthy master trapper and entrepreneur Ewing Young died without a will, and there was no system to probate his estate. A probate government was proposed at a meeting after Young's funeral. Doctor Ira Babcock of Jason Lee's Methodist Mission was elected Supreme Judge. Babcock chaired two meetings in 1842 at Champoeg (halfway between Lee's mission and Oregon City) to discuss wolves and other animals of contemporary concern. These meetings were precursors to an all-citizen meeting in 1843, which instituted a provisional government headed by an executive committee made up of David Hill, Alanson Beers, and Joseph Gale. This government was the first acting public government of the Oregon Country before American annexation.

You might be interested in
The Romans first code of law was established when
Anestetic [448]

The Romans' first code of law was established around 200 B.C

4 0
3 years ago
The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was a joint United States-U.S.S.R. venture to __________.
Sonja [21]
The Apollo-Soyuz Test Project was a joint United States-U.S.S.R. venture to live and work together on a space platform in orbit.
7 0
3 years ago
Which was NOT a major 18th century power?<br> Prussia<br> France<br> United States<br> Britain
hram777 [196]

Answer:

prussia

Explanation:

was not a 18th century power because they ain't have power over anything

3 0
2 years ago
What was happening in russia in the 1800s?
mestny [16]

Russia fought the Crimean War (1853-56) with Europe's largest standing army, and Russia's population was greater than that of France and Britain combined, but it failed to defend its territory, the Crimea, from attack. This failure shocked the Russians and demonstrated to them the inadequacy of their weaponry and transport and their economic backwardness relative to the British and French.

Being unable to defend his realm from foreign attack was a great humiliation for Tsar Nicholas I, who died in 1855 toward the end of the war. He was succeeded that year by his eldest son, Alexander II, who feared arousing the Russian people by an inglorious end to the war. But the best he could do was a humiliating treaty, the Treaty of Paris – signed on March 30, 1856. The treaty forbade Russian naval bases or warships on the Black Sea, leaving the Russians without protection from pirates along its 1,000 miles of Black Sea coastline, and leaving unprotected merchant ships that had to pass through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. The treaty removed Russia's claim of protection of Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire, and it allowed the Turks to make the Bosporus a naval arsenal and a place where the fleets of Russia's enemies could assemble to intimidate Russia.

In his manifesto announcing the end of the war, Alexander II promised the Russian people reform, and his message was widely welcomed. Those in Russia who read books were eager for reform, some of them with a Hegelian confidence in historical development. These readers were more nationalistic than Russia's intellectuals had been in the early years of the century. Devotion to the French language and to literature from Britain and Germany had declined since then. The Russians had been developing their own literature, with authors such as Aleksandr Pushkin (1799-1837), Nicolai Gogol (1809-62), Ivan Turgenev (1818-83) and Feodor Dostoievski (1821-81). And Russian literature had been producing a greater recognition of serfs as human beings.

In addition to a more productive economy, many intellectuals hoped for more of a rule of law and for an advance in rights and obligations for everyone – a continuation of autocracy but less arbitrary. From these intellectuals came an appeal for freer universities, colleges and schools and a greater freedom of the press. "It is not light which is dangerous, but darkness," wrote Russia's official historian, Mikhail Pogodin.

And on the minds of reformers was the abolition of serfdom. In Russia were more the 22 million serfs, compared to 4 million slaves in the United States. They were around 44 percent of Russia's population, and described as slaves. They were the property of a little over 100,000 land owning lords (pomeshchiki). Some were owned by religious foundations, and some by the tsar (state peasants). Some labored for people other than their lords, but they had to make regular payments to their lord, with some of the more wealthy lords owning enough serfs to make a living from these payments.

Russia's peasants had become serfs following the devastation from war with the Tartars in the 1200s, when homeless peasants settled on the land owned by the wealthy. By the 1500s these peasants had come under the complete domination of the landowners, and in the 1600s, those peasants working the lord's land or working in the lord's house had become bound to the lords by law, the landowners having the right to sell them as individuals or families. And sexual exploitation of female serfs had become common.

It was the landowner who chose which of his serfs would serve in Russia's military – a twenty-five-year obligation. In the first half of the 1800s, serf uprisings in the hundreds had occurred, and serfs in great number had been running away from their lords. But in contrast to slavery in the United States, virtually no one in Russia was defending serfdom ideologically. There was to be no racial divide or Biblical quotation to argue about. Those who owned serfs defended that ownership merely as selfish interest. Public opinion overwhelmingly favored emancipation, many believing that freeing the serfs would help Russia advance economically to the level at least of Britain or France. Those opposed to emancipation were isolated – among them the tsar's wife and mother, who feared freedom for so many would not be good for Russia.

3 0
2 years ago
Compare the views of Bradstreet and Johnson toward American Indians.
maks197457 [2]

Answer:

Bradstreet hated the Native Indian and Johnson believed in a friendly relation with them.

Explanation:

Sir William Johnson was an Irish military officer of the British army. He had a good relationship with the Native Americans in America after he arrived in the province of New York in 1738. Johnson becomes involved in trading with Indians especially with the Mohawk (the Six Nations of the Iroquois League). Johnson was given name Warraghiyagey and called him as sachem. After the French and Indian War, he was appointed as British ambassador to the Iroquois and became head of Indian Affairs for the northern colonies in America.

John Bradstreet hated the Native Indians as he calls them savages and brutes. Bradstreet did not want any relationship with the American Indians.

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What were the post world war 1 events?
    6·2 answers
  • After the war of 1812 european countries came to have greater ___ for america.
    14·2 answers
  • What was one result of the breakup of the Soviet Union?
    15·2 answers
  • Lovely's Purchase: 1816
    13·1 answer
  • What is one reason that Feudalism declined in Europe and why decline?
    13·1 answer
  • How did the Industrial Revolution help to cause a divide between the North &amp; South?
    11·2 answers
  • The Lusitania ran aground on the shore of<br> Germany.<br> True or false
    7·1 answer
  • How do you think sharecropping lead to segregation and discrimination
    15·1 answer
  • What is the forty thieves ​
    8·1 answer
  • What is the responsibility of government in newly independent nation's?​
    11·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!