I think it was the populations and wealth of people.
There are two necessities for an industry to be competitive, first for an industry to be competitive, the industry must have numerous producers that does not have a large market share, second, an industry can be considered competitive if its consumers regard the products of the producers as equivalent.
I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
Yes he would do this I’m sorry I just need points to ask a question.
<span>In his first essay, Brutus considered whether or not the thirteen states should be reduced to one republic as the Federalists proposed. After examining various clauses in the Constitution, he determined that this would essentially create a federal government that will “possess absolute and uncontrollable power…” Brutus pointed to the Necessary and Proper Clause (3.8.18) and the Supremacy Clause (6.2.0) as sources of immense power conferred upon the federal government by the Constitution.</span>
