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
Alja [10]
3 years ago
15

QUESTION 24

History
2 answers:
jasenka [17]3 years ago
7 0

Answer:

answer A i correct

Explanation:

spayn [35]3 years ago
5 0

The correct answer is A) he received a large land grant and brought in 300 American families to settle in the region.

The role that Stephen Austin played in the settlement of Texas by American colonists was that he received a large land grant and brought in 300 American families to settle in the region.

Without a doubt, Stephen F. Austin was an important figure in the settlement of the Texas territory and is considered by many as the leader of the independence of Texas. Stephen F. Austin (1793-1836) took hundreds of American families to Texas on behalf of the federal government of Mexico to inhabit a territory that was so isolated. In 1830, due to his efforts, Austin had a decent number of people living in and working for Texas.

You might be interested in
How did the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 limit the power of the monarchy? It prevented monarchs from instituting religious law. It
noname [10]

it prevented monarchs from having opponents arrested

3 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Where did the Romans get the money to build a new navy? What might this say about the strength of the Roman Republic?
Roman55 [17]

It took two men to wrestle Rome back from chaos and turn a republic into an empire. In the first century BC, Rome was a republic. Power lay in the hands of the Senate, elected by Roman citizens. But the senators were fighting for power between themselves.

'fleet') comprised the naval forces of the ancient Roman state. ... Because of that, the navy was never completely embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat "un-Roman". In antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the logistical autonomy that modern ships and fleets possess.

Many of the achievements of the ancient Romans are still in use today. The Roman Empire was powerful, due to its strong military tactics. Roman military policies helped to expand the empire. The soldiers were trained in the latest tactics of war and were well equipped with the weapons of war.

Who were the top government officials in the Roman Republic and what were their duties? Consuls. There were 2 consuls and they headed the army and ran the government. They also kept each other in line because each could veto the other's decision.

It took two men to wrestle Rome back from chaos and turn a republic into an empire. In the first century BC, Rome was a republic. Power lay in the hands of the Senate, elected by Roman citizens. But the senators were fighting for power between themselves.

Invasions by Barbarian tribes. The most straightforward theory for Western Rome's collapse pins the fall on a string of military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the Empire's borders.

'fleet') comprised the naval forces of the ancient Roman state. ... Because of that, the navy was never completely embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat "un-Roman". In antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the logistical autonomy that modern ships and fleets possess.

hope this helps

3 0
3 years ago
HELPPPPPPPP Select THREE patriot groups that formed as part of the protest movement.
mafiozo [28]

Answer:

the answer is simply a

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
How did individual states sedece from the union in 1861?
arlik [135]
<span>"A. Through votes in their legislatures and conventions" is the best answer. The whole process was relatively quick, with south Carolina being the first state to officially secede.</span>
7 0
3 years ago
In the space provided, make an argument for or against the policy of judicial review. Should the Supreme Court have the ability
Ket [755]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

My argument is to support the policy of judicial review.  I think the US Supreme Court has the ability to deem laws and executive actions unconstitutional because the US government has to have a neutral branch that can decide on difficult issues without any favoritism or bias.

The United States Congress has members of the two national parties: the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Both political parties could have particular agendas or personal interests that can bias the nature of law and could distort a piece of legislation.

That is why it is so important that the judicial branch -the Supreme Court-  can have the independence granted in the US constitution to freely decide when a law is unconstitutional.

3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What are economic institutions?
    13·1 answer
  • Which three ancient Greek and Roman architectural features do modern architects use today?
    5·2 answers
  • What was one war tactic of World War II? blockades partitioning extermination underground activities
    14·2 answers
  • What was the role of the Committees of Correspondence which formed in the years before the American Revolution?
    7·2 answers
  • How were Japanese Americans treated during World War II? Why did some Americans feel this was necessary? Were their fears justif
    6·2 answers
  • Why was Adams election seen by Jackson and his supporters as a “corrupt bargain “?
    11·1 answer
  • 1.
    6·2 answers
  • Do you think the framers of the Constitution could have limited or banned slavery? Why or why not?
    13·1 answer
  • In addition to fighting in the army how did Europeans colonies contribute to the war effort?
    11·2 answers
  • Which script was the code of hammurabi engraved into stone in
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!