Japan were not so much unhappy with the outcome of the treaty of Versailles as with how the treaty negotiations took place.
They felt probably correctly that they had been sidelined by the four major powers. However it should be noted that Japan didn't have any role in the European theatre of the war and its contribution was largely confined to providing convoy escorts and attacking Imperial Germany's possessions in the pacific.
For minimal effort during the war Japan was given what had been Germanys pacific Islands together with former territories in China.
The last part was hugely controversial the Germans had seized Shandong from the Chinese and the allies rather than return it to China gave it to Japan.
The Americans as well as some other allies used the venue of Versailles to make criticisms of the rather brutal way that Japan chose to run its empire. At this stage Japan controlled Korea chunks of China as well as various other smaller territories.
The Japanese never attempted to disguise the fact that they viewed other asians as racially inferior. The racial equality motion was merely an attempt to draw equivalence between their empire and the British and French empires.
<span>So at the time the Japanese weren't particuarly displeased at the versailles treaty. In later years it would become tied with the hated Washington naval agreements signed in 1921 which would lead to massive unrest in the Japanese military.</span>
Kangawaya. I’m not really sure how to spell it out it basically said that China had to hand over Hong Kong and open up its trading ports and allow the sale of opium.
You didn't provide us with choices, so I'll simply provide some historical explanation. The main issue was whether the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights added.
The Articles of Confederation, in place prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, had granted stronger authority to the states. Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power winding up in the hands of the federal government and its executive branch, thus allowing a small number of national elites to control the affairs of the USA. They feared this also would diminish the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
Federalists believed the Constitution itself clearly limited government power and protected the rights of the people. Nevertheless, the addition of a Bill of Rights, laid out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided reassurance to Anti-Federalists in the fight over ratification. The compromise which led to agreement in regard to ratification of the Constitution was called the Massachusetts Compromise, because of major opposition to ratification that had existed in Massachusetts. John Hancock and Samuel Adams (both of them anti-Federalists) were the ones who helped negotiate the compromise. The anti-Federalists agreed that they would support ratification of the Constitution, with the understanding that recommendations for amendments would follow if the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists promised to support the proposed amendments, which would outline a Bill of Rights to guarantee protection of specific rights the anti-Federalists wanted specifically asserted in the Constitution.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
No state can be denied equal representation in the senate.
