N your opinion, what is the most effective method for changing society—voting, challenges in the courts, nonviolent civil disobedience, or violence? What evidence can you provide from actual events in the 1960s to support your argument? This is what I have so far: Violence obviously isn't ideal in any situation, but it's what catches attention most obviously, and prompts lawmakers to make change in order to stop it. Whether it's positive or negative change, it will happen in an effort to stop the violence. Voting, as long as it's done on a large scale is effective, because it's not going to make a difference if the same group of people are always voting. A large enough population needs to be dedicated to their causes and vote for a candidate that will most actively support and promote their ideas
Woodrow Wilson confidently expected the USA to join the League of Nations. But many Americans hated the idea. Many had been against US involvement in the war, and they certainly did not want the USA to get entangled in European affairs after 1919.
Immediately following World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union entered into a Cold War, so the answer would be "escalating <span>tensions with the Soviet Union"
