The shock that happened over the Boston Massacre was not defended, as I would see it. This is on the grounds that there was proof highlighting the way that the fighters were incited to fire and were being bugged by the homesteaders. The warriors were being hollered at to discharge and the rest went like dominos in light of the fact that once the originally shot was shot, serious trouble come to the surface.
Not plagiarized so you can just add it :)
The answer depends on whose side you were on. The crusades were a time of much death, hardships and poverty on all sides as in all wars.
In Europe, most of the important people across the lands joined the crusades and travelled to the middle east to fight and "reclaim the holy land". Due to this large exodus, much of the wealth went with it, never to return and Europe became more lawless and poverty-stricken as a result.
I think it’s either food surplus or animal grazing I’m not sure but I don’t think it’s medicine.
The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.
Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)
The name of the plan for government the pilgrims created before leaving the Mayflower in the New World was referred to as the Mayflower Compact, and was one of the first written documents of its kind in North America.
