Hello There!
The Answer To This Question Would be "B" the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie
Hope This helped!
A peace policy that utilized trade and gifts to promote friendship and
authorized military force only to punish specific acts of aggression was
inaugurated and remained in effect, with varying degrees of success,
for the remainder of Spanish rule in Texas. The first success of the new
Spanish policy came <span>in 1762, when Fray José Calahorra y Saenz
negotiated a treaty with the Comanches, who agreed not to make war on
missionized Apaches. Continued Apache aggression made it impossible for
the Comanches to keep their promise, and ultimately led Spanish
officials to advocate a Spanish-Comanche alliance aimed at exterminating
the Apaches. That policy was officially implemented in 1772, and with
the help of Athanase de Mézières,
a French trader serving as Spanish diplomat, a second treaty was signed
with the Comanches. The Comanche chief Povea signed the treaty in 1772
at San Antonio, thereby committing his band to peace with the Spaniards.
Other bands, however, continued to raid Spanish settlements. Comanche
attacks escalated in the early 1780s, and Spanish officials feared the
province of Texas would be lost. To avoid that possibility, the governor
of Texas, Domingo Cabello y Robles, was instructed to negotiate peace with the warring Comanches. He dispatched Pedro Vial
and Francisco Xavier de Chaves to Comanchería with gifts and proposals
for peace. The mission was successful, and the emissaries returned to
San Antonio with three principal Comanche chiefs who were authorized by
their people to make peace with the Spanish. The result was the
Spanish-Comanche Treaty of 1785, a document that Comanches honored, with
only minor violations, until the end of the century. As Spanish power
waned in the early years of the nineteenth century, officials were
unable to supply promised gifts and trade goods, and Comanche aggression
once again became commonplace. Comanches raided Spanish settlements for
horses to trade to Anglo-American traders entering Texas from the
United States. Those Americans furnished the Comanches with trade goods,
including arms and ammunition, and provided a thriving market for
Comanche horses.</span>
They ruled that separating children in public schools by race was unconstitutional.
<span>an increase in trade with the west. their economy became ore westernized.</span>
If the system were being designed today, such a design probably would be rejected as unfair. Part of the problem is that the Framers were dealing with a less lopsided distribution. The ratio between most populous state and least populous stat in 1789 was about 7 to 1. Today, the ratio between California and Wyoming population is 50 to 1.
But the Senate made sense to the Framers in 1787 for a particular reason. At that time, all 13 former colonies were like independent nations or independent countries. They could mint their own coins, print their own money, and conduct international diplomacy directly with other nations. There are lots of reasons this was unsatisfactory. It produced economic chaos and a poor prospect of winning future wars, but it did give each state the status of a country.
Now, imagine you’re a small state like New Hampshire. Right now, you completely control your own destiny. Why do you want to join a Union unless you’re guaranteed a strong voice in that Union? Now, all the arguments that people still have about the Electoral College (“The big states would push all the little states around!”) actually do apply.
It is the Senate that does a superb job… if anything TOO good a job… of protecting “small states rights.” You can argue that it is an unfair system, and it probably is… but the point is this: In 1787, the question of how to get small states like New Hampshire to join this new Union, which was after all seemed like a risky experiment, was a big problem.
It’s really for political reasons, not absolute fairness, that the Senate was created in such a way as to give equal representation to each state. It seemed necessary in 1787. But there were lots of things that could not be foreseen, such as the rise of a strong national culture and the eventually lopsided ratios between the most populous and least populous states.
Now, let me address the “House of Representatives” question. How can the Senate be based on 2-senators-per-state while the House is based on population?
