The correct answer is A: <em>The Senate feared that the treaty would take away their constitutional right to declare war.</em>
The Treaty of Versailles was a formal peace treaty between the World War I Allies (Britain, France, Italy, and the United States) and Germany their enemy during the war. The then-majority leader of Senate, Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican who came from Massachusetts, rejected the treaty, especially on the section about the League of Nations the primary reason being the fear that this would take their constitutional right to declare war. His reasons were that the U.s. would lose its power to the League of Nations.
The Treaty of Versailles became the formal peace treaty that ended World War I between the Allies and Germany.
Answer:
Most Vikings were farmers. They grew crops such as barley, oats and rye and kept cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, chickens and horses. In most parts of Scandinavia, people lived in timber houses, but in places where wood was scarce they built with turf or stone instead.
Explanation:
To prevent them from interfering with state courts
Let me now if you need any other help!
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
Answer:
Tundra
Explanation:
1. I just did this quiz and the answer was Tundra
2. the freezing and frigid tundra is found way up north in parts of Alaska and Canada. That means you would not pass it traveling from Georgia to California
