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
Bumek [7]
3 years ago
14

What group first settled on Massachusetts ?

History
1 answer:
Zarrin [17]3 years ago
6 0

Answer:

The first group that settled in Massachusetts was known as the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This was one of the original English settlements in Massachusetts that we see today. They settled in 1630 by a group of about 1,000 Puritan refugees from England. The Pilgrims were followed by Puritans who established the Massachusetts Bay Colony at Salem and Boston.  

Explanation:

Hope this helps!!

You might be interested in
Why do you think that the founding fathers knew to put the phrase the "Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration of Independence?
madam [21]

Answer:

The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
World History
a_sh-v [17]

Answer:

I'm guessing africa is the the continent

4 0
3 years ago
President Reagan had a different attitude from his predecessors when it came to the national debt and how to grow the economy. W
sweet [91]
He believed the American people would have more money to spend so it would stimulate the economy. He stood for tax cuts to give Americans back their money.
4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Did the Native Americans believe that acquiring possessions was an important goal?
ohaa [14]

Answer:

Explanation:At the start of the twentieth century there were approximately 250,000 Native Americans in the USA – just 0.3 per cent of the population – most living on reservations where they exercised a limited degree of self-government. During the course of the nineteenth century they had been deprived of much of their land by forced removal westwards, by a succession of treaties (which were often not honoured by the white authorities) and by military defeat by the USA as it expanded its control over the American West.  

In 1831 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, had attempted to define their status. He declared that Indian tribes were ‘domestic dependent nations’ whose ‘relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian’. Marshall was, in effect, recognising that America’s Indians are unique in that, unlike any other minority, they are both separate nations and part of the United States. This helps to explain why relations between the federal government and the Native Americans have been so troubled. A guardian prepares his ward for adult independence, and so Marshall’s judgement implies that US policy should aim to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream US culture. But a guardian also protects and nurtures a ward until adulthood is achieved, and therefore Marshall also suggests that the federal government has a special obligation to care for its Native American population. As a result, federal policy towards Native Americans has lurched back and forth, sometimes aiming for assimilation and, at other times, recognising its responsibility for assisting Indian development.

What complicates the story further is that (again, unlike other minorities seeking recognition of their civil rights) Indians have possessed some valuable reservation land and resources over which white Americans have cast envious eyes. Much of this was subsequently lost and, as a result, the history of Native Americans is often presented as a morality tale. White Americans, headed by the federal government, were the ‘bad guys’, cheating Indians out of their land and resources. Native Americans were the ‘good guys’, attempting to maintain a traditional way of life much more in harmony with nature and the environment than the rampant capitalism of white America, but powerless to defend their interests. Only twice, according to this narrative, did the federal government redeem itself: firstly during the Indian New Deal from 1933 to 1945, and secondly in the final decades of the century when Congress belatedly attempted to redress some Native American grievances.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What country in Southeast Asia is predominantly Christian?
mezya [45]
I believe it is the philippines

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Where did many of Roosevelt’s New Deal ideas come from originally?
    12·1 answer
  • HURYYYY PLEASEEEEE
    5·2 answers
  • What was the precursor to the baby boom?
    13·2 answers
  • The body of each organism is organized in a certain manner. Which of the following shows the organization of the body from the s
    11·1 answer
  • What jobs were classified as professional? Laborers Factory line workers Irrigation workers None of the above
    15·1 answer
  • seeks to eliminate conflict between economic and social classes · rejects the notions of the "rights of individuals" · believes
    6·2 answers
  • Please, I need Help
    9·1 answer
  • Who did the Portuguese defeat to<br> gain power in the Indian Ocean?
    8·1 answer
  • What injustice did McNeil fight against?
    13·2 answers
  • Ancient polytheistic Roman religion had some unique attributes but it was considered to have largely been a product of?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!