No.
The Treaty of Versailles (1919) was a peace treaty signed by the European powers that officially ended World War I.
After six months of negotiations in Paris, the treaty was signed as a continuation of the November 1918 armistice in Compiègne, which had put an end to the clashes. The main point of the treaty required Germany to accept all responsibility for causing the war and, under the terms of articles 231-247, to make reparations to a number of nations of the Triple Entente.
Although the Versailles treatment was a good one, it was a way of blaming Germany and punishing it, but I don't think it's possible to say that there was peace when years later the World War II happened. They should have proposed an agreement between all countries and not just as a way of holding Germany alone.
Answer:
Most colonists had faced difficult lives in Britain, Ireland, Scotland, or Germany. They came to the Americas to escape poverty, warfare, political turmoil, famine and disease. They believed colonial life offered new opportunities.
Explanation:
Answer:
ohhh you naugthy boi haha it means "Not Safe For Work"
Explanation:
During the summer of 1787, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia established equal representation in the Senate and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Called the “Great Compromise” or the “Connecticut Compromise,” the unique plan for congressional representation resolved the most controversial aspect of the drafting of the Constitution.
In the weeks before the Constitution’s framers agreed to the compromise, the delegates from the states with large populations argued that each state’s representation in the Senate should correspond to the size of the state. Large-state delegates promoted James Madison’s Virginia Plan, the document that was the basis for several of the clauses in the Constitution. Under this plan, the Senate and the House would base their membership on the same proportional “right of suffrage.” That is, the number of senators in each state would be determined by its population of free citizens and slaves. Large states, then, stood to gain the most seats in the Senate. As justification for this advantage, delegates noted that their states contributed more of the nation’s financial and defensive resources than small states, and therefore, required a greater say in government.
Small-state delegates hoped to protect states’ rights within a confederate system of government. Fearing the effects of majority rule, they demanded equal representation in Congress, as was practiced under the Articles of Confederation and assumed in William Paterson’s New Jersey Plan. In fact, some framers threatened to withdraw from the convention if a proportional representation measure passed.
Other delegates sought a compromise between large-state and small-state interests. As early as 1776, Connecticut’s Roger Sherman had suggested that Congress represent the people as well as the states. During the 1787 convention, Sherman proposed that House representation be based on the population, while in the Senate, the states would be equally represented. Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate except in matters concerning money. The convention’s grand committee reported his motion, with some modifications, to the delegates early in July. Madison led the debates against Franklin’s measure, believing it an injustice to the majority of Americans, while some small-state delegates were reluctant even to support proportional representation in the House. On July 16, delegates narrowly adopted the mixed representation plan giving states equal votes in the Senate within a federal system of government.
Once delegates established equal representation in the Senate, they needed to determine how many senators would represent each state. State constitutions offered some guidance. Several states designated one senator per county or district, while in Delaware there were three senators for each of the three counties. Convention delegates did not refer to the state precedents in debate, however. Instead, they seemed to take a common-sense approach in deciding the number of senators.
According to constitutional commentator Joseph Story (1779-1845), few, if any, delegates considered one senator per state sufficient representation. Lone senators might leave their state unrepresented in times of illness or absence, and would have no colleague to consult with on state issues. Additional senators, moreover, would increase the size of the Senate, making it a more knowledgeable body, and better able to counter the influence of the House. On the other hand, a very large Senate would soon lose its distinctive membership and purpose, and actually decrease its ability to check the lower house or to allow senators to take personal responsibility for their actions.
Given these considerations, delegates had a limited choice regarding the number of senators. During the convention, they briefly discussed the advantages of two seats versus three. Gouverneur Morris stated that three senators per state were necessary to form an acceptable quorum, while other delegates thought a third senator would be too costly. On July 23, delegates filled in the blank in the proposal offered by Morris and Rufus King: “That the representation in the second branch consist of _____ members from each State, who shall vote per capita.” Only Pennsylvania voted in favor of three senators. When the question turned to two, Maryland alone voted against the measure, not because of the number, but because Martin disagreed with per capita voting, which gave each senator, rather than each state, one vote.
I'm gonna go with A & B " It provided a way for people to move west more easily." and "It created a mode for the transport of goods and services to the west." C is also somewhat applicable but I'm not 100% sure about C. Hope this helps.
