I’ll give you two:
Yes: The “War” on the Indians was not a traditional war of declaration but of skirmishes. When wagon trains of people headed West Indians would commonly target them for raids and pillage, so along many routes forts where built and patrols would try and make sure they were safe. If the problem became worse the local garrison would find the tribe and come with a list of demands. Most of the time they were fired upon arrival out of fear or anger. This would lead to a small battle or skirmish which would likely cause collateral damage.
No: The wars raged in the west against the Indians were that of near genocide, and to call it anything but is misleading. To claim that the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people was a “battle” is absurd and shouldn’t be considered. Though in films that depict such events are dramatized and inaccurate, situations much like those were taking place around the west yearly.
<span>As
in any developing country, labor and employing companies always had
their differences. The Knights of Labor group was the first well
recognized labor union and it was all inclusive, meaning almost anybody
(women, blacks and but not Chinese) was welcomed. I think the Chinese
were admitted at a later date. After the American Federation of Labor
(AFL) was formed, the Knights of Labor fell out of favor and
disappeared.
The major difference was the Knights of Labor formed the foundation upon
which the AFL was born. Their demise was a natural evolution of the
labor movement in this country. The Knights of Labor lacked good
management and their inability to carry out successful strikes for their
members caused their ranks to be recruited by the AFL. </span>
What's the context?
The industrial revolution
Even further back...
The agricultural revolution
Trade?
Communication?
Travel?
Exploration?
