Answer:
As towns grew wealthier, town dwellers began to resent the lord's feudal rights and his demands for taxes. They felt they no longer needed the lord's protection—or his interference. ... Power gradually shifted from feudal lords to the rising class of merchants and craftspeople.
Explanation:
Answer:
A large variety of substance were transported within an easy route
Explanation:
The Indian Ocean trade routes connected Southeast Asia, India, Arabia, and East Africa, beginning at least as early as the third century BCE. ... Domestication of the camel helped bring coastal trade goods such as silk, porcelain, spices, slaves, incense, and ivory to inland empires, as well.
The dhow trade was particularly important in the western Indian Ocean, where those vessels could take advantage of the monsoon winds; a great variety of products were transported between ports on the coast of East Africa and ports on the Arabian Peninsula and on the west coast of India (notably Mumbai, Mangaluru ( ...
Need for industry--the War of 1812 demonstrated the US dependence on Great Britain for manufactured goods.
Following the War of 1812 and experiences with blockades and embargoes, the US came to the realization they could not be self-sufficient and were dependent on Great Britain for manufacturing. The US government began to invest in industry and infrastructure as well as banking to launch an industrial system. Farming remained important but as a piece of the entire economic system.
Answer:
The correct answer is C) Schenck v. the United States (1919)
Explanation:
The Schenck v. the United States (1919) case has great importance in the history of the country. Two activists, Elizabeth Baer and Charles Schenck were writing against the military draft.
They even distributed pamphlets discouraging people from joining the military and promoted a rebellion against forceful draft.
They were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. In their defense, they stated how they were only practicing their right to free speech.
However, the Judge did not rule in their favour stating that a free speech is not protected under the first Amendment if it creates a 'clear and present danger'
