1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Anna71 [15]
2 years ago
9

As the population of the unitied states grew, why do you think more people wanted to move west

History
1 answer:
marin [14]2 years ago
7 0

Answer:The westward-moving population ultimately could be explained by the quest for cheap land and natural resources, economic opportunities, more amenable living conditions for families and self-improvement.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
On the east side of a town, there are multiple fast-food restaurants. On the west side of town, there is only one fast-food rest
Deffense [45]

Answer:

There is a lack of competition on the west side of town, so the one restaurant does not need to consider the prices at other restaurants.

Explanation:

When there are multiple businesses selling a similar product, each will compete against the others to try and sell their product to consumers instead of the other businesses selling their products first. Due to this competition, the producers will list the prices based on the prices at the other businesses. Consumers are more likely to purchase cheaper products, which is why the producers will try to list their prices lower than the other producers in hopes of gaining more customers and profit.

If there is only one business in a location that has no competitors, they will list the prices on their own accord, not based on the prices at other businesses.

Because the west side only has one restaurant, their prices will likely be higher than those at other restaurants located elsewhere because the west side restaurant has no competition.

<em>Hope this helps!</em>

7 0
2 years ago
Why do people support the Right to Bear Arms amendment?
EleoNora [17]

Answer:

Explanation:Modern debates about the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was not even raised until long after the Bill of Rights was adopted.

Many in the Founding generation believed that governments are prone to use soldiers to oppress the people. English history suggested that this risk could be controlled by permitting the government to raise armies (consisting of full-time paid troops) only when needed to fight foreign adversaries. For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

This massive shift of power from the states to the federal government generated one of the chief objections to the proposed Constitution. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would take from the states their principal means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists responded that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry. They disagreed only about whether an armed populace could adequately deter federal oppression.

The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. The nation’s military establishment has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. We still hear political rhetoric about federal tyranny, but most Americans do not fear the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. Furthermore, eighteenth century civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer expect to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend against common criminals (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
The voting rights act made it legal to
Sholpan [36]
Aimed to overcome legal barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote<span> as guaranteed under the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


</span>
8 0
3 years ago
What were the three principles that
vladimir2022 [97]

Answer:Under the Articles, each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom and independence.” The old weakness of the First and Second Continental Congresses remained: the new Congress could not levy taxes, nor could it regulate commerce

7 0
2 years ago
I need help with numbers 20 and 21
saul85 [17]
The list that is their is the answer
8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Compare and contrast the ways britain, france, and the united states dealt with problems created by the great depression?
    7·1 answer
  • Which sentences include an absolute? check all that apply.in war, both sides generally suffer huge casualties.the losing country
    9·1 answer
  • Which events in the 1680s caused the increased settlement and exploration of new Spain’s northern frontera
    13·1 answer
  • PLZ PICK FROM A OR B ONLY!!!!!
    15·1 answer
  • ANSWER ASAP!!! 10 POINTS AND I"LL MARK YOU BRAINLIST AND GIVE YOU THANKS!!!!.............................Did the Constitution gi
    5·1 answer
  • In 1828 Conrad J.Van houten invented a pressbthat produced fine cocoa powder cocoa powder was easier to mix with water and led t
    15·1 answer
  • Why was the Dred Scott v. Sanford considered to be a cause of the Civil War?​
    12·1 answer
  • Why was it important for the united states to kill Osama Bin Laden?
    13·1 answer
  • PLEASE HELP FAST
    10·2 answers
  • Who is the present General Secretary of United Nations (UN)?
    10·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!