When did the appalanchians form?
26943
It appears that the question period has expired.  If you have received an answer that meets your needs, please choose one of those as a 'best answer.'  If you haven't received a good answer for your question, you may want to consider the following,\n\n1) Re-post your question.  Newer questions get more activity on Yahoo! Answers than old ones.\n2) If you do re-post your question, consider why it wasn't answered the first time.  Could it be more specific?  Could it be worded better? Were there grammatical or spelling errors? Was it in the best category?\n\nIf it doesn't seem likely that re-posting your question will help you, then here's a listing of my favorite 'answer sites'.  Maybe one of them will help you.\n\nAnswers.com http://www.answers.com/\nBartleby http://www.bartleby.com/\nYahoo Reference http://education.yahoo.com/reference/\nHowStuffWorks http://www.howstuffworks.com/\nWikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page\n\nSince I really haven't answered your question, it is not necessary to give me any points.  Regards.
222496
Apparently Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and Johh Tyler, with Van Buren's family also owning them when he was a child.  Interestingly, of the first six presidents, four were from Virginia, and they were the slaveholders.  Of the next six, five were from the south (including 3 more Virginians).  One wonders if the history of slavery in the US would have been shorter had the White House been occupied by more northerners in its early years--or would the Civil War have come that much sooner?
159372
JUst from the top of my head\n\nNo I dont beleive they were plain indians\nThey were short, strong legs and the reason there were so much difficulty catching them was because they were mountain people\nFor the longuest time they did not need horses.\n\nLater, they needed to live in the plains due to reservation policy.\nTHey were taken away from their natural territories to be located in reservations ( I think they were sent to the Four Corners (around Oklahoma) which was very different from where they came from....\n\nI have Mohawk ancestry...\n\nHope I am not too off the mark...
680261
Mississippi was part of the Mississippian culture in the early part of the second millennium AD; descendant Native American tribes include the Chickasaw and Choctaw. Other tribes who inhabited the territory of Mississippi (and gave their names to local towns) include the Natchez, the Yazoo, and the Biloxi.
464728
Well, the GABI (Great American Biotic Interchange) went both ways, and several families of mammals from North America came to South America, and viceversa. However, only few native South Americans remain today in North America (NA), whereas many originally Holarctic families are thriving in South America (SA) at present. \n\nThe above answerer has outlined the three major "strata" defined by GG Simpson for the mammals of SA. The "original" South American mammals before the GABI included marsupials (shared with Australia, but forming a distinct cohort with different families) but also the exclusively South American xenarthrans (although there is a possible fossil anteater from Europe), and the Caviomorph rodents (closely related to the hystricognathous African rodents). In addition, there were some carnivores that had made it from NA. \n\nAfter the Panama land bridge appeared, the GABI was intense. North and South American faunas mixed and they appear to have coexisted for a long time. \nThe subsequent Pleistocene extinctions involved groups of both origins, but the South American natives were more intensely affected. Among the hypotheses to explain this,  interspecific competition has been mentioned, but also climatic changes. \nFirst of all, direct competition is _very_ difficult to prove, and more so with respect to fossil remains from strata that may not be exactly coeval. A more recent and preferred explanation involves a little paleoclimatology. \n** During the glaciations (and other stressful periods), South American conditions were more benign, because the continent is closer to the Equator, whereas environments in NA were much harsher, facilitating the extinction of the South American immigrants, along with many native North American giant forms. \n**In addition, the Central American corridor, which had been at first a savanna-like environment that permitted passage, later in the Pleistocene became more like a tropical forest. Then many cursorial (running) animals that inhabited open areas were unable to "cross the bridge". The giant ground sloths and glyptodonts were trapped in NA, and when climate and vegetation kept changing toward colder and drier conditions, became extinct.\n\nAnimals left from this: \nAmong the original South American natives, only the xenarthrans (sloths, armadillos, and anteaters) and marsupials (opossums)[early inhabitants], and the caviomorph rodents (originally derived from their African relatives) [second stratum colonizers] are alive today. The immensely diverse native ungulates went extinct, along with the representatives of the megafauna (giant sloths, glyptodonts, etc). At least one species of armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) is expanding its range in NA today, and the opossums (I remember Didelphis virginiana, not sure if there are others) are well established there. Caviomorph rodents also occur in NA (porcupines, genus Erethizon), but are mostly confined to Central America. \nThese are the South American contributions to North American fauna. In contrast, about 50% of the South American mammal genera have North American origin.\n\nWith respect to birds, at least the Passeriformes Suboscines are South American in origin, but I have no idea _when_ they colonized NA. They include the Tyrannidae (tyrant flycatchers). Other birds with Neotropical origin are the hummingbirds (Trochiliformes or Apodiformes).\n\n---------------------\nUpdate:\nMmm... I’m not sure what you call “non-speed strategies”. Predators? Running forms such as ungulates? There were many native ungulates in South America and they went extinct; also many marsupial predators such as the marsupial sabertooth “cat”  that also disappeared. Many caviomorph rodents are cursorial (capybaras, agoutis, etc).\nI would relate it more to size. Size _is_ a constraint because large animals have different energetic balance and need large amounts of food and room. And those went extinct in both co
575793
I belive that the Appalachian Mountains formed over 250 million years ago, when Pangea still existed.
863614
This depends a bit on what we call a "mountain range". However;\nThe big ranges (Andes, Himalaya, Alps etc) are all very young, most uplift in the past 30 million years and much in the past 3-5my\nThe mountain belt including the Scandinavian peninsula, the Scottish Highlands, English Lake District and Wales were part of an "Andean" type range about 400my ago.  The Apalachians in the US are actually part of the same chain, "broken off" so to speak.\n\nSome parts of the Scottish Highlands, in the north west, were formed in the core of a much older range, up to 2,500my, but it is debatable whether you can call that a "mountain range".\n\nThe very ancient granites and gneisses (>4,000my) in Canada, Australia, Southern Africa and Greenland were likewise probably part of a mountain building episode, though the Plate Tectonics that formed later mountains probably hadn't kicked in then.  And these days, those areas are mostly rather level and eroded.  The South Africa/Swaziland border where some of these rocks are found is pretty rugged, but whether you could call it a "mountain range" is again debatable.\n\nPart of the problem is that there are ancient rocks within some very young mountain ranges - the rocks are old but the uplift forming the mountains is recent.\n\nIf we call a mountain range a "linear feature of land with steep and rugged terrain significantly higher than the land either side" , and an old range is one that has always been relatively high, not recently pushed up, then we need to find such a feature made of Pre-Cambrian rocks to meet the definition of "oldest mountain range".\n\nOff the top of my head, I'd plump for parts of the Appalachians.  The main range is "only" a few hundred milion years old, but the Pre-Cambrian blocks within were probably standing as elevated mountain blocks when the plate collision forming the range began.  So there has been an elevated upland in that area for perhaps a billion years.
199920
The native Americans.
428603
Yes, and you spelled it correctly.  www.melungeon.org has some info.  Melungeons self-identify as mixed Mediterranean and Native American.  They were found living in the Appalachians by explorers in the mid-17th Century - and practiced Christianity, spoke some English and other European languages.
1089222
I was wrong with my earlier answer. I thought you had asked about 1787. The answer is New Hampshire and Virginia. NH on June 21, 1788 and VA on June 26, 1788. I really should start taking my Aderole again, my apologizes for my earlier incorrect answer.
463203
state where acct. originated
136101
This group of people were formed to oppose the ratification and formation of a national government. This group included Thomas Jefferson and John Jay. They later formed the Republican party, which in post-Civil War, became the Democrat party we know of today.
153837
The Army is the branch of the United States armed forces that has primary responsibility for land-based military operations. As of fiscal year 2004 (FY04), it consisted of 485,500 soldiers (including 71,400 women) on active duty and 591,000 in reserve (325,000 in the Army National Guard (ARNG) and 246,000 in the United States Army Reserve (USAR)). The Continental Army was formed on June 14, 1775, before the establishment of the United States, to meet the demands of the American Revolutionary War. Congress created the United States Army on June 3, 1784 after the end of the American Revolutionary War, to replace the disbanded Continental Army. However, the US Army considers itself to be an evolution of the Continental Army, and thus dates its inception from the origins of the Continental Army.
686278
may 29,1790\n\n\n~thanx for the points~
266637
Pre-Colombian era\n\nSouth America is thought to have been first inhabited by people crossing the Bering Land Bridge, now the Bering strait, though there are also suggestions of migration across the southern Pacific Ocean. Over the course of millennia, people spread to all parts of the continent. By the first millennium CE, South America’s vast rainforests, mountains, plains and coasts were the home of tens of millions of people. Some groups formed permanent settlements. Among those groups were the Chibchas (or "Muiscas" or "Muyscas") and the Tairona. The Chibchas of Colombia, the Quechuas of Peru and the Aymaras of Bolivia were the 3 most important sedentary Indian groups in South America.\n[edit]\nChibchas\nThe Chibcha linguistic communities were the most numerous, the most territorially extended and the most socio-economically developed of the Pre-Hispanic Colombians. By the 3rd century, the Chibchas had established their civilization in the northern Andes. At one point, the Chibchas occupied part of what is now Panama, and the high plains of the Eastern Sierra of Colombia. The areas that they occupied were the Departments of Santander (North and South), Boyacá and Cundinamarca, which were also the areas where the first farms and first industries were developed, and where the independence movement originated. They are currently the richest areas in Colombia. They represented the most populous zone between the Mexican and Inca empires. Next to the Quechua of Peru and the Aymara in Bolivia, the Chibchas of the eastern and north-eastern Highlands of Colombia were the most striking of the sedentary indigenous peoples in South America. In the Oriental Andes, the Chibchas were composed of several tribes, who spoke the same language (Chibchan). Among them: Muiscas, Guanes, Laches and Chitareros.
980393
They started splitting apart during the Jurassic periods (yes, when dinosaurs walked the earth...) about 170 million years ago, give or take.
1119325
If you're talking about the American Revolution, it started with the Battle of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Lord Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown was (I think) in October 1781.