The decline of the Mound Builders of Cahokia brought a mass exodus caused by resource shortage.
Answer: Option 4
<u>Explanation:</u>
Mound Builders were a group of people lived in a place called Cahokia. They built various styles of mounds to live in, to worship and also to bury people. Cahokia flourished well and their major production was corn. Also, it reformed to a notable successful city by other cities.
During the 13th century, the medieval climate warming started to happen. According to researches Cahokia had experienced a prolonged drought in its 1350s. Also, the land became unsuitable to grow corns. The food resources also started to reduce in the area.
All the resources were more scarce after 1250. So people started o leave the place abandoned to new places they could survive. At the time of Spanish's entry to Cahokia in the 15th century, the place was completely abandoned.
for the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. Instead of forging a compromise between Radical Republicans and moderates, his actions united the opposition against him. His bullheaded opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated all hope of using presidential authority to affect further compromises favorable to his position. In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.
Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well. Johnson's decision to support the return of the prewar social and economic system—except for slavery—cut short any hope of a redistribution of land to the freed people or a more far-reaching reform program in the South.
Historians naturally wonder what might have happened had Lincoln, a genius at political compromise and perhaps the most effective leader to ever serve as President, lived. Would African Americans have obtained more effective guarantees of their civil rights? Would Lincoln have better completed what one historian calls the "unfinished revolution" in racial justice and equality begun by the Civil War? Almost all historians believe that the outcome would have been far different under Lincoln's leadership.
Among historians, supporters of Johnson are few in recent years. However, from the 1870s to around the time of World War II, Johnson enjoyed high regard as a strong-willed President who took the courageous high ground in challenging Congress's unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority. In this view, much out of vogue today, Johnson is seen to have been motivated by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and by a firm belief in the separation of powers. This perspective reflected a generation of historians who were critical of Republican policy and skeptical of the viability of racial equality as a national policy. Even here, however, apologists for Johnson acknowledge his inability to effectively deal with congressional challenges due to his personal limitations as a leader.
<span> The Electoral College now casts two separate votes, one for President and one for Vice President, after the election of 1800.</span>
Answer:
The State of the Medieval Economy from 750-1050With the collapse of the Roman Empire, trade in Europe ground to a halt.
Cities were abandoned. Craftsmen and merchants all but disappeared from the European landscape. Money fell out of use and trade was conducted by means of barter. Serfs struggled to feed themselves, and their lords enjoyed none of the luxuries we associate with aristocrats these days. Europe experienced an urban revolution around the 12th century. For three centuries, Europe languished in an economic slump. Then, around 1050, the European economy started turning again, slowly at first, but quickly accelerating. Trade began to flow across Europe's roads and waterways. Urban centers that had been all but abandoned began to grow again. Old trades re-emerged, and new trades were invented. The change was nothing short of an urban revolution. In the course of a couple centuries, Europe went from a continent of farmers, an economic dead end, a cultural backwater, to a land of merchants and craftsmen, living in bustling cities, generating culture at an unprecedented level. Save Timeline Autoplay Speed NormalVideo Quiz Course16K viewsThe Scope of the Urban RevolutionThe scope and speed of Europe's urban revolution is rather startling, considering its stagnation during the Dark Ages. The old Roman cities, which had never been more than fortified outposts to start with, became the centers of growing urban sprawls. Paris, London and Cologne doubled in population between 1100 and 1200, and doubled again between 1200 and 1300. Outside the old empire, new towns were established. 12th century Germany witnessed the founding of such prominent cities as Freiburg, Lubeck, Munich and Berlin. The height of this urban explosion was Italy. Venice, Genoa and Milan already had populations of over 100,000 in the 12th century. These populations would triple in less than two hundred years. Factors Behind the Urban RevolutionSeveral factors made this urban revolution possible. New lands were being opened up for agricultural development. A decline in Viking raids, combined with the development of stable central governments, at last allowed Europeans to stop huddling around feudal manors and start taming the great wilderness of the north. New agricultural technologies and techniques were producing unprecedented surpluses in European farms. The heavy plow was breaking up the rich soils of northern Europe. The three field crop rotation system was allowing farmers to wring the most from each acre. These agricultural surpluses would be essential to feed Europe's growing urban population. Meanwhile, labor saving technologies were freeing up human beings from many time consuming tasks. By the 12th century, Europeans had harnessed horses, the wind and rivers to do work that people used to do. This meant that it took far fewer people to run a farm. Instead of digging in the dirt with sticks or grinding grains by hand, people could pursue skilled trades in Europe's growing cities and leave the grinding and digging to horses and mills. These agricultural shifts were having an impact on the European aristocracy as well. Feudal lords were beginning to realize that they could make a lot more profit by charging rents on free peasants than they could by manning their own fields with serfs. Freed from the land at last, many of these free peasants left their farms to find fortune in the city.
Answer:
Another important impact of colonialism in Africa is the disarticulation of their economy. Colonialism distorted African pattern of economic development in many different ways. There was disarticulation in production of goods, markets, traders, transport, provision of social amenities and pattern of urbanization
Explanation:
