The old Roman Republic from its Empire had it's Emperor, Hail Caesar, with nearly absolute power. But being a republic then, they also had a Senate of which the Senators were elected from the people, as government's representatives of and for the people. This concept can be adapted to resemble our current legislative branch, vis-à-vis Congress. And of course our executive, commander-in-chief, stems from a less domineering figure of Rome's Emperor Caesar.
-Spain- gold, silver, new goods (Columbian exchange), intense catholic missionaries, didn't heavily colonize (Gold, God, Glory); conquistadors
Pizarro- silver mines at Potosi became spain's wealth for next 100 years
Cortes
just wanted to maintain empire bc after 1588 spanish armada, fell into decline
-Britain wanted to expand royal government in colonies, not as focused on bullionism or conversion. Jamestown, joint stock company
North and South Carolina: charter by king charles
<span>France- expand the fur trade, native population, catholic missionaries. </span>
Cartier in canada
Marquette in MS river
Champlain had friendly relations w natives
<span>Courier dubois live among indians- have better relations w/ indians </span>
Answer:
The answer would be A.
Explanation:give brainliest if this helped :)
Fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, "U.S.-Russia relations are clearly headed in the wrong direction," finds an Independent Task Force on U.S. policy toward Russia sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. "Contention is crowding out consensus. The very idea of a 'strategic partnership' no longer seems realistic," it concludes.
answer= checks and balances
Explanation:
Federalist No. 51 addresses means by which appropriate checks and balances can be created in government and also advocates a separation of powers within the national government. This idea of checks and balances became a crucial document in the establishment of the modern U.S. system of checks and balances.
