Answer: Because the GI Bill was successful for only part of the population.
Explanation:
GI Bill is a law passed in 1944 promoted to help soldiers mobilized during the 2nd world war to rejoin in the society. The benefits that the soldiers would have are; financial aid by a year, facility to obtain loans of a house or small business and financing of its technical or university studies. This economic drive led to economic and social development between 1950 and 1960.
However, even though the law intended to help all soldiers, there was discrimination and segregation when it was granted; African American soldiers and women were less benefited, or had greater obstacles to obtaining benefits; for example, universities did not allow people of color to enroll, and they were not granted financing to purchase housing.
For this reason, the GI Bill was a success for white soldiers returning from the war, but it did not equally benefit the entire population, with African Americans and women being discriminated against.
<em>I hope this information can help you.</em>
The correct answer for the question that is presented above is this one: "b.Interchangeable parts were identical parts that could be exchanged for one another in manufacturing of goods. "
Here are the following choices:
a.Interchangeable parts were designed for the construction of mills and factories that used various resources to power equipment.
<span>b.Interchangeable parts were identical parts that could be exchanged for one another in manufacturing of goods. </span>
c.Interchangeable parts were goods that were custom-made by hand using the expertise of skilled workers.
This is an opinionated question, so points should not be affected toward your opinon. However, I believe corporations should not have loyalty to the United States because the U.S. could ban businesses from selling/sharing a product to certain countries, however I think the U.S. government should have some say in what corporations sell to other countries so that they aren't giving some random person in "who knows where" parts to make a bomb etc...
<span>Elected as a Whig to Congress in 1846, Abraham Lincoln gained notoriety when he lashed out against the Mexican War, calling it immoral, proslavery, and a threat to the nation's republican values. President James K. Polk had called for war, accusing Mexico of shedding of "American blood on American soil.” Lincoln responded by introducing a series of resolutions demanding to know the "particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed." One of Lincoln's constituents branded him "the Benedict Arnold of our district," and he was denied renomination by his own party.
Document: Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused to receive him, [the envoy of the United States,] or listen to his propositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil:" And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens:" And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, that "the Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil." And whereas this House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil: Therefore, Resolved By the House of Representatives, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House --1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution.2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico.3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army.4th. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.5th. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or the United States, by consent or compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.6th. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the messages stated; and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the enclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.7th. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through the Secretary of War.8th. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.Source: Abraham Lincoln, “Spot Resolutions,” December 22, 1847Copyright 2016 Digital History
this is the site i got it from does this help you or no?
</span>
Economically it had a positive impact on the South, it allowed their economy not to be solely reliant on agriculture. However, as far as their society goes there wasn't a change in their belief system in their stance on African Americans. Many still considered them as second citizens until the Civil Rights Movement.
