Anyone here let's ch. at na yrr

thanks for points have a nice day ahead

Answer

did you say lets ch.at ok what do you want to talk about ?

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.  

monopolies  came to the united states with the colonial administration. the large-scale public works needed to make the new world hospitable to old world immigrants required large companies to carry them out. these companies were granted exclusive contracts for these works by the colonial administrators. even after the american revolution, many of these colonial holdovers still functioned due to the contracts and land

read more on -