1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Kay [80]
2 years ago
6

Please Help!!!

History
2 answers:
spayn [35]2 years ago
6 0

The saying "the political is now public" aptly describes the way in which formerly quiet events have become more public during the last years of the 20th century. This can be accredited to the media's thorough coverage of important events, scandals, and trials at the time. For example, in the last years of the 20th century, the president's more private affairs were made known to the whole of America. President Clinton's inappropriate behavior and impeachment were examples of a political event that was made public. Publicized trials were another thing that made the phrase "the political is now public" an accurate description for the last years of the 20th century. Trials that previously would have been a somewhat private event were made available for the American people through different means of broadcasting. The last few years of the 20th century were a strange time as political events and happenings, that would have been kept quiet, became more openly available to the general public.

sp2606 [1]2 years ago
5 0
I guess it would be everything that they know is now what we know
You might be interested in
What are 5 reasons colonists would be upset with King Qeorge the third
nydimaria [60]
<span>King George III speaks before both houses of the British Parliament to discuss growing concern about the rebellion in America, which he viewed as a traitorous action against himself and Great Britain. He began his speech by reading a “Proclamation of Rebellion” and urged Parliament to move quickly to end the revolt and bring order to the colonies.

</span>
8 0
3 years ago
Explain MacMillan's conclusion that Wilson "remained a Southerner in some ways all his life." Describe how Wilson's background a
Murljashka [212]

Answer:

paki basa nalng .

Explanation:

On December 4, 1918, the George Washington sailed out of New York with the American delegation to the Peace Conference on board. Guns fired salutes, crowds along the waterfront cheered, tugboats hooted and Army planes and dirigibles circled overhead. Robert Lansing, the American secretary of state, released carrier pigeons with messages to his relatives about his deep hope for a lasting peace. The ship, a former German passenger liner, slid out past the Statue of Liberty to the Atlantic, where an escort of destroyers and battleships stood by to accompany it and its cargo of heavy expectations to Europe.

On board were the best available experts, combed out of the universities and the government; crates of reference materials and special studies; the French and Italian ambassadors to the United States; and Woodrow Wilson. No other American president had ever gone to Europe while in office. His opponents accused him of breaking the Constitution; even his supporters felt he might be unwise. Would he lose his great moral authority by getting down to the hurly-burly of negotiations? Wilson's own view was clear: the making of the peace was as important as the winning of the war. He owed it to the peoples of Europe, who were crying out for a better world. He owed it to the American servicemen. "It is now my duty," he told a pensive Congress just before he left, "to play my full part in making good what they gave their life's blood to obtain." A British diplomat was more cynical; Wilson, he said, was drawn to Paris "as a debutante is entranced by the prospect of her first ball."

Wilson expected, he wrote to his great friend Edward House, who was already in Europe, that he would stay only to arrange the main outlines of the peace settlements. It was not likely that he would remain for the formal Peace Conference with the enemy. He was wrong. The preliminary conference turned, without anyone's intending it, into the final one, and Wilson stayed for most of the crucial six months between January and June 1919. The question of whether or not he should have gone to Paris, which exercised so many of his contemporaries, now seems unimportant. From Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton at Camp David, American presidents have sat down to draw borders and hammer out peace agreements. Wilson had set the conditions for the armistices which ended the Great War. Why should he not make the peace as well?

Although he had not started out in 1912 as a foreign policy president, circumstances and his own progressive political principles had drawn him outward. Like many of his compatriots, he had come to see the Great War as a struggle between the forces of democracy, however imperfectly represented by Britain and France, and those of reaction and militarism, represented all too well by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany's sack of Belgium, its unrestricted submarine warfare and its audacity in attempting to entice Mexico into waging war on the United States had pushed Wilson and American public opinion toward the Allies. When Russia had a democratic revolution in February 1917, one of the last reservations that the Allies included an autocracy vanished. Although he had campaigned in 1916 on a platform of keeping the country neutral, Wilson brought the United States into the war in April 1917. He was convinced that he was doing the right thing. This was important to the son of a Presbyterian minister, who shared his father's deep religious conviction, if not his calling.

Wilson was born in Virginia in 1856, just before the Civil War. Although he remained a Southerner in some ways all his life in his insistence on honor and his paternalistic attitudes toward women and blacks he also accepted the war's outcome. Abraham Lincoln was one of his great heroes, along with Edmund Burke and William Gladstone. The young Wilson was at once highly idealistic and intensely ambitious. After four very happy years at Princeton and an unhappy stint as a lawyer, he found his first career in teaching and writing. By 1890 he was back at Princeton, a star member of the faculty. In 1902 he became its president, supported virtually unanimously by the trustees, faculty and students.

6 0
2 years ago
The last Native American rulers of Mexico were the:
Aloiza [94]

Answer:

When Geronimo was captured on September 4, 1886, he was the last Native American leader to formally surrender to the U.S. military. He spent the last 20 years of his life as a prisoner of war.

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did Cornwallis and Washington have different points of view
Angelina_Jolie [31]
Answer:-
because They were on different sides of the war, one won, one lost, so they had different opinions.
7 0
2 years ago
During world war 2 Germany was a member of the
mezya [45]
Germany was part of the Axis Powers.
4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Workers who came to europe after the war to fill low-paying jobs were known as what?
    10·1 answer
  • Definition Presidential succession act of 1947???
    7·1 answer
  • Who was the official languages act meant to appease?
    10·1 answer
  • HELP ASAP!!!!!!!!!
    12·1 answer
  • Unions sought to improve workers pay and working conditions by?
    12·1 answer
  • What were the basic causes of WWII?
    5·1 answer
  • Use the drop-down menus to complete the statements.
    11·1 answer
  • HELP ME PLEASE!!!!!!
    7·1 answer
  • tell me about a state, city, or towns reported crime. Explain what types of crimes happen in the area you chose. Explain if this
    9·2 answers
  • How did mr. Douglass make his escape from slavery in 1838?.
    7·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!