Back then government was possible when the people came and worked together. By having good leaders they could make stable groups called empires
Hope this helps might be a bit more then you wanted
Answer:
Explanation:
A) Bush V. Gore was about a presidential election dispute.
B) Gideon V. Wainwright was about not being able to afford someone to represent you.
C) Miranda V. Arizona enforced the Miranda Rights.
D) United States V. Nixon was about the affair in which they ordered tape recordings to be used in court.
None of these seem correct to the answer as Marbury v. Madison seems a much better choice. If I had to chose, I'd probably choose B or C.
This was known as manifest destiny. Colonists believed that is was their right and destiny to complete the westward expansion.
Answer:
What do peasant farmers do when they lost their crops?
Peasant farmers often depended on <em>subsistence agriculture</em> - this means that the farmers primarily grew crops to feed themselves and their families, rather than selling their crops for economic gain.
So, if the peasant farmers lose their crops, they will have nothing to eat. The peasants will probably go hungry and perhaps starve.
And what common pattern do we see when the masses are starving? They <em>revolt </em>! I suppose that's a bit of a stretch, but in general, the peasant class would definitely be upset at having no crops to feed themselves and their children. Such tensions will be directed at their leader or "King" who is supposed to be prepared for any disaster.
Wouldn't people think, "The leader has everything he wants and can get anything he does not have, can't he share with us?"
Anyways, that's how I would interpret this question.
Hope this helps!
:D
