0
Did The American military conquere Santa Fe New Mexico without any bloodshed?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
In 1846 Brigadier General Stephen W. Kearny led an army of 1,700 soldiers into Santa Fe to claim it and the New Mexico Territory for the United States. The Mexican military forces in New Mexico retreated to Mexico without fighting and Kearny's forces easily took control of New Mexico.
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What fort was captured without a drop of bloodshed in 1775?
Ethan Allen captured Fort Ticonderoga without a drop of bloodshed in May of 1775.
How do you win a war without bloodshed?
a war of games
What fort did the patriots capture without a drop of bloodshed in 1775?
Fort Tinconderoga
Was Brazil's independence gained without bloodshed?
Yes, Citizens asked for it and it was granted.
What policy encouraged the growth of the American influenced without the use of military power?
Dollar Diplomacy
What is the bloodless revolution of 1800?
Jefferson's rise to the presidency/power without any bloodshed. This was something new in the 1800s and since hen it grew less and less common for the transition of power to cause bloodshed.
What was the goal of Mohandas Gandhis campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience?
To achieve Independence from Britain without bloodshed
What was the goal of the embargo act?
To protect American shipsTo pressure France and England to stop harassing American shipping without using military force
What was the goals of the Embargo Act?
To protect American shipsTo pressure France and England to stop harassing American shipping without using military force
Was sulla a good roman leader?
To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.
What policy encouraged the growth of American influenced without the use of military power?
Dollar Diplomacy
What policy encouraged the growth of American influence without the use of military power?
Dollar Diplomacy
