The land between rivers, the euphrates and the tigris rivers
I believed that the correct answer for the question is option (A) he wanted to take strong action against North Vietnam.
Lyndon Johnson was the thirty-sixth president of the United States, he assume the presidency on the last year of Kennedy´s mandate after his death, and get re-elected the next year (1964) upto 1969. His presidency held a proggresist policy for the inside such as the approbation of the civil right law in 1964 that prohibited the racial discrimination on public establishments and bussines or institution that receive federal funds, the next year he approbed a law that stopped the discrimination on the voting system, this action openned the door to millions of black people from the south states to vote for the first time.
Nevertheless his proggresism for the inside in what respects the foreign policy Johnson held an aggresive and anti-communist speech. He was the author of a doctrine that support the U.S. army unilateraly intervene or start <em>"limited wars" </em>anywhere in the world in order to preserve and protect North American interests, the maximum example of this doctrine was the war against the vietnamese people. He accept a theory named as domino that sustained that if South Vietnam fall in the hands of communism it would be the first of wave of communist advance in Asia. When he get to the presidency in 1963 there were about 10 thousand soldiers on Vietnamese soil, three years later the number growth upto half a million. But this militar escalation did not supose the triumph on the war and also gave birth to an opposive movement between the american youth, the hippies. The vast protests along the entire country together a succesfull offensive of the Tet (north vietnamese army) between january and february of 1968 make Johnson decline as candidate for the reelection on that year leaving his place to Richard Nixon.
I hope this answer help you. Regards.
Answer:
It was not
Explanation:
The civil war still proceeded to happen over the morality and legality of slavery, so the Missouri compromise was clearly ineffective at preventing war and appeasing both sides permanently.
