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
Mekhanik [1.2K]
3 years ago
7

Why does Liliuokalani say she signed the act of abdication

History
1 answer:
Amanda [17]3 years ago
7 0

Queen Liliuokalani said that she agreed to sign The Act of Abdication so the people who lead the revolt against the colonizers would not be punished or harmed.

You might be interested in
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
Which was a cause of the French Revolution
Karolina [17]

Some Causes of the French Revolution:

#1 Social Inequality in France due to the Estates System.

#2 Tax Burden on the Third Estate.

#3 The Rise of the Bourgeoisie.

#4 Ideas put forward by Enlightenment philosophers.

#5 Financial Crisis caused due to Costly Wars.

#6 Drastic Weather and Poor Harvests in the preceding years.

#7 The Rise in the Cost of Bread.

4 0
3 years ago
6. The Clean Air Act requires all of these except​
satela [25.4K]

Answer:

cute ko

Explanation:

kase cute ako sobraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. chat mo ko ayieeee

7 0
3 years ago
I never understand these things no matter how many different ways they are explained to meplz help.
Talja [164]
Hello there!

Here is my OPINION/ interpretation. I may or may not be incorrect.

1). The US shouldn't sell arms (weapons) overseas because it would cause a war, and the US's goal was to stay isolated, hence the term isolationism.

Arms = weapons
Arms = body part

Selling weapons across the to Britain could cause conflicts, which could lead to war.

However, (in the first image), of they didn't sell weapons, they'd remain neutral, therefore avoiding war and its costs.

2). This cartoon MAY be trying to persuade the reader that war isn't always the solution to resolving a conflict, and that isolationism can lead to peace and unity.


Again, this is MY OPINION.

Hope this helped! :)

---------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional tutor or have any professional background in your subject. Please do not copy my work down, as that will only make things harder for you in the long run. Take the time to really understand this, and it'll make future problems easier. I am human, and may make mistakes, despite my best efforts. Again, I possess no professional background in your subject, so anything you do with my help will be your responsibility. Thank you for reading this, and have a wonderful day/night!

8 0
3 years ago
People living in _____ tend to eat a diet that is high in carbohydrates.
olga2289 [7]
My best answer is C. Hunter-gatherer societies. Hope this helps :)
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What kind of religion did the Egyptians practice
    5·1 answer
  • What are 4 factors that reduce a population
    13·1 answer
  • What type of livestock is<br> raised in the Edwards<br> Plateau region?
    10·1 answer
  • The nation consisted of a loose alliance of independent states which was called the league of
    7·1 answer
  • What were some common themes in American art and literature during the era of good feelings?
    15·1 answer
  • Freed slaves who wanted land available under the Homestead Act still faced the challenge of:
    11·2 answers
  • How did the Gupta Empire rise?
    8·2 answers
  • When a judge analyzes law, what document is used to determine the law's validity? the individual state's law the US Constitution
    5·2 answers
  • Do a Say Means Matters for the following quote
    11·1 answer
  • You will write a review of our first book, the record of murders and outrages by william a. blair. an review essay is not simply
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!