You didn't provide us with choices, so I'll simply provide some historical explanation. The main issue was whether the Constitution needed a Bill of Rights added.
The Articles of Confederation, in place prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, had granted stronger authority to the states. Patrick Henry and other Anti-Federalists were concerned about too much power winding up in the hands of the federal government and its executive branch, thus allowing a small number of national elites to control the affairs of the USA. They feared this also would diminish the rights and freedoms of individual citizens.
Federalists believed the Constitution itself clearly limited government power and protected the rights of the people. Nevertheless, the addition of a Bill of Rights, laid out in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, provided reassurance to Anti-Federalists in the fight over ratification. The compromise which led to agreement in regard to ratification of the Constitution was called the Massachusetts Compromise, because of major opposition to ratification that had existed in Massachusetts. John Hancock and Samuel Adams (both of them anti-Federalists) were the ones who helped negotiate the compromise. The anti-Federalists agreed that they would support ratification of the Constitution, with the understanding that recommendations for amendments would follow if the Constitution was ratified. The Federalists promised to support the proposed amendments, which would outline a Bill of Rights to guarantee protection of specific rights the anti-Federalists wanted specifically asserted in the Constitution.
The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was created in 1789 and ratified in 1791.
A historian compares the events by period since he compares them by time period
b. the interest of European nations in creating colonies in North and South America
Explanation:
- Monroe's doctrine was America's policy of opposing European colonialism in America beginning in 1823.
- In 1823, US President James Monroe rebelled against the intervention of European countries on the American continent.
- The doctrine said that further efforts by European states to seize control of any independent state in North or South America would be seen as "a manifestation of a hostile attitude toward the United States."
- At that moment, directed against the interventionist intentions of the Holy Alliance of European Powers towards the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America, that policy later became "America to Americans" and gained a strong national character.
Learn more on Monroe Doctrine on
brainly.com/question/1587206
brainly.com/question/290388
brainly.com/question/1587201
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
According to Krushchev's view was that U.S. invasion of Cuba was pending and that to lose Cuba would do great harm to the communist cause, especially in Latin America. Nikita Khrushchev was the leader of Soviet Union between 1894-1971, that time a cold War was going on among Soviet Union and United States of America
