Which statement does not accurately describe the results of latin american independence movements?

a. bernardo o’higgins is remembered as the father of chilean independence.

b. military strongmen called caudillos seized control in many countries after the spanish departed.

c. a creole priest named father hidalgo led the mexican independence movement.

d. spain crushed the revolts and remained in control of all but a few of its latin american colonies.

d?

The correct answer is D. Spanish didn't crush the Latin American independence revolts, so it didn't remain in control of its colonies.

Explanation:

In response to the enthronement of King Joseph Bonaparte in Spain, between 1808 and 1810 government boards that exercised sovereignty on behalf of the abdicated King Ferdinand VII were installed both in the Iberian Peninsula and in the American territories. The resistance of the American juntas to submit to all the governments formed in Spain, radicalized positions and led to the armed struggle between realists and patriots. From 1810, various American territories began to declare themselves independent national states under republican regimes, forming liberator armies, among which those led by Hidalgo and Morelos in Mexico, and those of the Argentinian Jose de San Martin and the Venezuelan Simon Bolívar in South America. The independence of the new states of America was consolidated in the 1820s, with the creation in Mexico of the Trigarante Army in 1821 and ending in South America with the destruction of the last viceroyal army in the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824.

danielu suge pula

explanation:

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is