The Selective Service Act of 1917 accomplished the goal of enlisting enough men to serve in the military to be successful during World War I.
Further Explanation:
Once America was exposed to the Zimmerman Telegram and its message, it was inevitable that they would join World War I. In order to be fully prepared for this, the US government had to ensure that they had enough soldiers to fight against the central powers. This is when president Woodrow Wilson enacted the Selective Service Act.
This was a conscription law, meaning it essentially forced men between the ages of 21-35 to register with the US government for military service. Each man was given a number. If there number was picked by the US government, then these men were expected to show up for military training and to serve in the war.
This would not be the last time America used a law like this in order to increase the amount of men in the military. This strategy would also be used during World War II and the Vietnam War.
Learn More:
Causes of World War I- brainly.com/question/8020368
Key Details:
Topic: American History, World War I
Grade Level: 7-12
Keywords: Selective Service Act, World War I, conscription
Character uncle Ben… that’s the spider man phrase
Before the Portuguese explored and went to the East, in order to obtain the Asian goods, they had to trade with the Muslims and was more expensive. But, after Vasco de Gama reached India, the Portuguese had a sea route that gave them direct access to Asia which meant no more trading with the Muslim. They could trade with the rest of Europe and sell for cheaper.
Sometime in the mid-1970s the term peace process became widely used to describe the American-led efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors. The phrase stuck, and ever since it has been synonymous with the gradual, step-by-step approach to resolving one of the world's most difficult conflicts. In the years since 1967<span> the emphasis in Washington has shifted from the spelling out of the ingredients of "peace" to the "process" of getting there. … Much of US constitutional theory focuses on how issues should be resolved – the process – rather than on substance – what should be done. … The United States has provided both a sense of direction and a mechanism. That, at its best, is what the peace process has been about. At worst, it has been little more than a slogan used to mask the marking of time.</span><span>[2]</span>
