Answer:
The purpose of a treaty is to officially end the state of war between the hostile parties.
You can win or lose a war in many ways. It depends on the time in history. A nation can surrender after enough losses, give the territories to the winner or the whole country in some cases. But capitulation is not the only way to win a war. You can lose every single part of land a country owns but continue to fight with your allies like Serbia did in World War 1. And Germany surrendered in World War 1 not by losing territory but by realizing that there is no way to win the war. And in World War 2 they were fighting until the end. Even after the capitulation, some soldiers kept fighting.
So to win a war you need the other side to surrender. Casualties, territory, and length of war do not mean victory or defeat, only when one party concedes defeat.
The Navajo Code Talkers faced a serious moral dilemma when deciding to help the United States military during World War II.
The dilemma was whether or not the code talkers should help the US government despite the poor treatment Native American tribes have faced over the course of the last century.
During the 1800's, the federal government and military treated Native American tribes horribly. This included forcing them to move off their homelands and onto reservations, going to Indian Boarding schools, etc. Despite all the poor treatment received by the Native American tribes, they still decided to help the US during World War II.
Answer:
If the US lost the American revolution, I'd think you would end up seeing a similar relationship that the UK had with Canada, Australia, etc.
The immediate consequences would have resulted in the founding fathers executions or imprisonment. Some like Franklin, who were seen as more worldly may have kept their freedom but overall all those guys probably would be done as political actors. The British would have made the colonies pay for much of the cost of the war and the continued stationing of massive amounts of solders.
Over time the British would have probably continued to expand their control over the lands between the Appalachians and the Mississippi, resulting in a series of further colonies. Many of these colonies would be simple expansions of already existing colonies like New York, Pennsylvania and Virgina. I believe all three had claims to lands West of the Appalachians, claims that had to be dealt with and truncated in the new America, but may have been left alone in a 19th century British colonial America.
Explanation:
England, was the new world that provided them with economic supermacy
The government often set up different kinds of Acts. The three ways the U.S. government enforced the Indian Removal Act was that;
- They seize
- they occupy
- they drove the inhabitant away.
<h2>Indian Removal Act.</h2>
They used the process of “allotment and assimilation” in enforcing the Indian Removal Act. President Jackson was known to be going against the Court as he decided to enforce Native Removal through the act where He sent white settler to take over the Native American land with the use of force.
Learn more about the Act from
brainly.com/question/2222812
