(SS8H3a) How did the French and Indian War contribute to the American Revolution?
and Housekeeping
nile justice
a Geography
Americans and
ers
Your
orgia Colony
olution and a New
France wanted revenge after losing the war and negotiated with the colonies to fight England.
Cudy Guides
e-Test
American Indians that fought in the war supported the colonies and encouraged them to fight the
British
aiz
udy Guide
England went into debt because of the war and decided to tax the colonies to get their money
back
dy Guide Answer Key
udy Guide
England was unhappy with the colonies performance in the war and punished them with taxes.
sessment

Following the war which George Washington was a officer and Hero , the colonists were hardened and grew more independent. The interest of Britain and the colonists differed. The colonists for example wanted western expansion. They were also very resistant to the British taxing them for war reparations.

Explanation:

the correct answers are the following

a proxy war which functioned as a training field for wwii

republican democratic goverment

national side, leaded by the fascist general franco

the spanish civil war took place between 1936 and 1939 and was fought after a military coup undertaken on the 17th july 1936 by a group of generals that had seceeded from the spanish republican army, under the leadership of general franco, and who aimed to expel the democractically-elected republican goverment from power.

this war became a proxy war in which european powers tested their military equipment. on one side, urss and mexico supported the left-wing republican spanish goverment, while nazi germany and fascist italy supported the national fascist side.

franco managed to win the war in 1939, with the significant contribution of the foreign military support, and became the dictator of spain until his death in 1975.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!

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