If you mean the Boston tea party then in my opinion they did it out of extreme anger. They had pretty much nothing else they could do and thought well why not dress up as Indians and go destroy a bunch of tea. The way I'm explaining it probably sucks but to me that's how it seems.
In many ways, the two notions are at odds. Or, at least, mild conflict.
Free Market Capitalism is an economic system understands that some will succeed and others will not. People will be rewarded for their ingenuity and market acumen and bad ideas will be disregarded and rejected.
American Democracy (Democratic-Republic) is defined by citizens banding together to solve common problems, while reserving the right of private property and concepts of liberty.
So, as free market capitalism has expanded in periods of history, Democracy has often taken a hit. As collective Democratic ideals have expanded, free market ideals have declined.
The New Deal is common understood as a retraction of the free market and the expansion of American collective Democracy. We are currently in a period of struggle between free market capitalism and strong collective Democracy. Only time will tell which concept will prevail.
I believe the answer is: B. <span>It denies enforceability to certain contracts that are not in writing
Statute of frauds stated that to be legally binding, an agreement should be materialized in a contract that filled with a specific obligation that must be met by each party under the circumstances that they both agreed on. If this writing do not exist, technically we wouldn't have any ground to sue if the other party failed to fulfill the obligation.</span>
Answer:
I wouldn't
Explanation:
The Crusades were a series of religious wars initiated, supported, and sometimes directed by the Latin Church in the medieval period. The term refers especially to the Eastern Mediterranean campaigns in the period between 1095 and 1271 that had the objective of conquering the Holy Land from Islamic rule.
Start date: 1095
Start date: 1095End date: 1492
