They traded things like information and spices, new diseases were brought over, and I imagine religious views were shared too!
Only 45% of graduated high school students have a fair amount of trust in the media.
We should have the freedom to criticize the government. An essential concept in the history of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, predating the First Amendment, has been much debated: the freedom to criticize the government.
The Court sets a very high bar for public officials, extended to public figures, and to be able to recover damages from the news media for false and libelous statements. This puts an immense amount of stress on these individuals.
I personally think that there should be regulation on the amount elected officials subject themselves to press conferences.
Answer:
In my opinion, I would be for the U.S. expansion. With the expansion comes opportunities for new jobs, farming, new trading routes, and overall a chance at a new life. Although it is inaccurate to say that I would be in need of a job considering that I did not live at the same, I would assume that those in need of farm land and work would appreciate the movement. If I were a rich man living in the city during the time of expansion, I would still agree with the expansion. Because of the amount of people in search of a job in the city, the streets were crowded, work places were filled to the top, and people were desperate for work. The expansion allows for these people to move and find new work somewhere else that does not interfere with my work. However, we can not overlook the horrible things that came with this movement such as slavery, the deaths of many people, and the basic fact that it was unconstitutional. In perspective, this question could differ depending on the person. I would have been against the expansion if I were an Indian whose home was taken and whose family was being killed by the travelers.
Explanation:
i dont know if this is good i just wrote something do what you will with it
