D is the answer cchfgjiub
The building and the maintenance of roads is the responsibility of the government. The Federal government has always played an important part in making sure that major highways and bridges are in good shape since they're vital to the growth and the development of the country.
An example is the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 whereby there was a construction of interstate highway of about 41,000 miles whereby majority of they cost was borne by the Federal government. This helped improve the transportation network in the country and was vital for socio economic development.
In conclusion, the individual states gave very little resistance to the federal government's efforts to improve roads as it had a positive impact on the economy.
In conclusion, the correct option is true.
Native Americans that were in the way of the United States expanding west were forced to move to present day Oklahoma. This migration that occurred is known as the Trail of Tears, where <em>thousands </em>of Native Americans died.
The United States government wanted to move west, but the Native Americans homeland was in the way, so they had to come up with a solution to move them. The passing of the Indian Removal Act in 1830 was a big step to moving the Native Americans, although most of them did not want to move. When the United States government tried to make deals, most of them did not budge and when the deadline came around, most of the Native Americans were still there. This finally caused President Jackson to send troops to force them out.
This march is known as the Trail of Tears, where the Native Americans were forced from their homeland. This migration was exhausting, even for the soldiers leading it. Along the way, the Natives were forced into camps and <em>thousands </em>died from starvation, weather, and even diseases.
Historian Frederick Merk says this concept was born out of "a sense of mission to redeem the Old World by high example ... generated by the potentialities of a new earth for building a new heaven".[4]
Historians have emphasized that "manifest destiny" was a contested concept—pre-civil war Democrats endorsed the idea but many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs) rejected it. Historian Daniel Walker Howe writes, "American imperialism did not represent an American consensus; it provoked bitter dissent within the national polity ... Whigs saw America's moral mission as one of democratic example rather than one of conquest."[5]
Newspaper editor John O'Sullivan is generally credited with coining the term manifest destiny in 1845 to describe the essence of this mindset, which was a rhetorical tone;[6] however, the unsigned editorial titled "Annexation" in which it first appeared was arguably written by journalist and annexation advocate Jane Cazneau.[7] The term was used by Democrats in the 1840s to justify the war with Mexico and it was also used to divide half of Oregon with the United Kingdom. But manifest destiny always limped along because of its internal limitations and the issue of slavery, says Merk. It never became a national priority. By 1843 John Quincy Adams, originally a major supporter of the concept underlying manifest destiny, had changed his mind and repudiated expansionism because it meant the expansion of slavery in Texas.
Answer: an acceptable use of the power to tax.
Explanation:
