Answer:
1775–1830
U.S. Indian policy during the American Revolution was disorganized and largely unsuccessful. At the outbreak of the war, the Continental Congress hastily recruited Indian agents. Charged with securing alliances with Native peoples, these agents failed more often than they succeeded. They faced at least three difficulties. First, they had less experience with Native Americans than did the long-standing Indian agents of the British Empire. Second, although U.S. agents assured Indians that the rebellious colonies would continue to carry on the trade in deerskins and beaver pelts, the disruptions of the war made regular commerce almost impossible. Britain, by contrast, had the commercial power to deliver trade goods on a more regular basis. And third, many Indians associated the rebellious colonies with aggressive white colonists who lived along the frontier. Britain was willing to sacrifice these colonists in the interests of the broader empire (as it had done in the Proclamation of 1763), but for the colonies, visions of empire rested solely on neighboring Indian lands. Unable to secure broad alliances with Indian peoples, U.S. Indian policy during the Revolution remained haphazard, formed by local officials in response to local affairs.
Answer:
166.67%
Explanation:
The computation of the percentage increase in grain production for the period 1950-1955 is shown below:
= (Year 1995 grain production - Year 1950 grain production) ÷ ( Year 1950 grain production)
= (1,600 million tons - 600 million tons) ÷ (600 million tons)
= 1,000 million tons ÷ 600 million tons
= 166.67%
Hence the increase in percentage is 166.67%
It was, and still is, a staple import of the united kingdom, which at one time had possession of the 13 colonies of America, India and Hong Kong. As such, these three countries maintain to this day a strong trade network with the UK and her former colonies.
