Which is not an essential part of the process of historical inquiry? A. analyzing the evidence
B. asking effective questions
C. debunking a historical hypothesis
D. gathering historical evidence
E. understanding historical context

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.  

the anwer to

this question is false the spnaish had more than enough reinforcments and soldiders to defeat the azatecs becuase the azatecs did not have the advanced technolgy the spanish did

you can talk about what you learned about them. and you can talk about what happened on you're journeys with them. and then you can put all of the thing you learned about them in you're diary.

the answer is chorales.