There is no map attached to this question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>D <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<u>Options A, C, E.</u>
<u>Here is why:</u>
It lost interest in progressive causes.
Before and during World War I, many people who were progressive supported the war. Woodrow Wilson, who was the president of the United States at the time, made it seem like World War I was the "war of all wars" and it would end violence around the world. This seems very contradicting, but progressives believed in what he was saying along with other citizens. All of this caused progressivism to fall after World War I, as people started to realize the cruelty and death that happened during the war and associated being progressive with wanting war.
~
It wanted to return to a normal lifestyle.
After World War I was over, many American citizens just wanted to return to a normal lifestyle. World War I came with many casualties, hardships, and cost the United States a lot of money. Many people were tired and wanted to return back to normal and wanted to avoid another huge conflict. This caused the debate if whether or not the United States should back away from foreign affairs and even try to ignore them.
~
It was very concerned with the question of isolationism or internationalism.
Although some people in the United States wanted to back away from foreign affairs, isolationism and internationalism was always a question. Isolationism is the act of ignoring and not getting involved in foreign affairs and wars, even if a friendly foreign country needed help. Some people wanted this, as they didn't want anymore American casualties and debt and wanted to always remain in a normal and comfortable lifestyle. Internationalism is the exact opposite and is the act of getting involved in everything important in outside affairs and occurrences. Many people argued that this was correct, as it was important that America evolved with the country to exert and bring peace and prevent wrong doings, harmful ideologies and some countries from becoming too powerful.
When analyzing a source, historian has to remain unbiased and free from personal feelings and opinions. They know that there are different source of an event and they may reveal different facts which could cross-check his argument. The objective historiography is possible only when the historian is unbiased and when different sources like archaeological, literary and other sources are cross-checked and interpreted independently.
The answer is: Because when the Quakers came along their ideas were revolutionary.
