What was life in the Austin colony like?

Life was peaceful, there was plenty of food, and people usually relied on farming. They lived in cottages in a mixed cultural environment. However, there were plenty of Mexcian laws to be followed, such as converting to the Catholic faith.

Explanation:

Austin colony was the first Anglo-American settlement in Texas, established in 1821. They were living under Mexican law and government. At first, around 300 families were moving there, but later 1700 more were introduced.

It was a multicultural environment. Most of the inhabitants came from the US, there were plenty from Mexico, Germany, Poland, Ireland, and various African heritage.  Although slavery was abolished by law, not everyone stuck to the law. However, the Austin colony did offer protection to the free African-Americans who lived there.

Most settlers in the Austin colony had crops on their lands, taking care of cotton, sugar, potato, and corn. There was plenty of food, as Texas has various resources. People ate fish and meat, as well as goods that came from crops, mills, and farms. The fruit was also raised easily. They had a varied diet, and it included sugars, salt, vegetables during the season, syrups, and flour. Sugar cane was one of the most prised agricultural goods, as the land was fit for it.

Their homes were usually log cabins, sometimes having a single room. Cooking was done outside in the summers, and in the open fireplace in the winter.

The religion was mostly Catholics, and those who wanted to obtain land often converted because of the law from land grants. Some became Catholics only in name, but not as a confession of faith. Protestantism started to build up later, but illegally. Schools were rare, and not many children had formal education.

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.

answer; speaker;