I dont have an answer to this it would take to long to write, sorry.
The idea behind the statement was that people in the south didn't like slavery much but they thought that it had to be done. For many of them it was true because they had large areas of land that were covered in crops, and the economy was thriving because the people who worked on that land were slaves. If it hadn't been for free work force, the economy would've failed for them and they'd lose everything. They believed that slavery therefore had to exist because someone has to keep the world spinning according to what they believed was right.
<span />
I think they didn’t really have a judgement about who owned the land but had different tribes of different people, the different tribes might’ve had controversy against each other but that isn’t exactly known. Conflicts over the use and ownership of Native lands are not new. Land has been at the center of virtually every significant interaction between Natives and non-Natives since the earliest days of European contact with the indigenous peoples of North America. By the 19th century, federal Indian land policies divided communal lands among individual tribal members in a proposed attempt to make them into farmers. The result instead was that struggling tribes were further dispossessed of their land. In recent decades, tribes, corporations, and the federal government have fought over control of Native land and resources in contentious protests and legal actions, including the Oak Flat, the San Francisco Peaks Controversy, and the Keystone XL pipeline
In what year? There were many years where nothing was in common at all and now there is most everything in common
Answer:
Eventually, railways lowered the cost of transporting many kinds of goods across great distances. These advances in transport helped drive settlement in the western regions of North America. They were also essential to the nation's industrialization. The resulting growth in productivity was astonishing.D
Explanation:
