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
marin [14]
3 years ago
11

Branliest answer ASAP!

History
1 answer:
Volgvan3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Image result for Make a discussion between a Federalist and an Anti-Federalist that makes their opinions clear :)

The Federalists felt that this addition wasn't necessary, because they believed that the Constitution as it stood only limited the government not the people. The Anti- Federalists claimed the Constitution gave the central government too much power, and without a Bill of Rights the people would be at risk of oppression.

Explanation:

Brainliest

You might be interested in
Read what Franklin D. Roosevelt said when he accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 1932. "I pledge you, I
kvv77 [185]

Answer:

the answer is C,D

Explanation:

7 0
4 years ago
Compare Guicciardini’s attitude about how to deal with tyrants with what you know about colonial leaders of the American Revolut
goblinko [34]

Francesco Guicciardini attitude to deal with tyrants is to have a healthy relationship for the benefit of its people and himself.

  • Being close to tyrants, he can gain trust and help in forestall plans.
  • The colonial leaders tried to maintain a good relationship with the British.
  • After the revolution, treaties sign to maintain peaceful relations with the two countries.
  • Guicciardini would've made a great patriot because he believes that deception and success are useful. The more you enjoy the reputation of an honest and truthful, others will easily believe.

Therefore, we can conclude that Guicciardini's attitude to deal with the tyrants, justified.

Learn more about "Guicciardini" here:

brainly.com/question/21572232  

5 0
3 years ago
How were friars and monks different?
anastassius [24]
Monks were generally more solitary and disconnected from the Laypeople they lived in a self sufficient community and were generally tied to that area, whereas Friars works closely with the laypeople relied on them more heavily f and were also allowed to travel around a wider area than the monks.
5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following events MOST influenced westward expansion in the United States?
elena-14-01-66 [18.8K]
I believe it is the Louisiana Purchase

I have taken the class and read about it and it is what I have in my notes
5 0
2 years ago
What does region mean?
In-s [12.5K]
A region is like a specific area or place. 
7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Match each economist to his economic belief.
    12·1 answer
  • Where were the Lamassu sculptures originally displayed?
    12·1 answer
  • President John Kennedy and President Ronald Reagan both visited the Berlin Wall in order to?
    14·1 answer
  • What war is seen as the US first major war
    5·2 answers
  • Which act was passed by the federal government in response to the soviet launch of the sputnik satellite in 1957?
    12·1 answer
  • why wasn't al gore elected president in 2000 despite receiving more popular votes than his opponent
    9·1 answer
  • Who did the Protestants say was the head of the church
    9·1 answer
  • Britain gained territory but increased the nations debt as a result of
    15·2 answers
  • Why are the Hittites significant in Mesopotamian history?
    14·2 answers
  • What is the PRIMARY significance of the Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision of 1954?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!