The Articles of Confederation was the United States' first constitution. It was very weak and gave little to no power to the federal government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the government could not tax the states, regulate trade, create and enforce laws properly, draft soldiers, change the Articles without the approval of the states, and other important matters. This meant that most of the power was in the hands of the states and the citizens.
The Anti-Federalists were in favor of the Articles of Confederation, as they usually associated the government having power with British tyranny. They wanted to keep the power in their hands. Federalists wanted to change the Articles of Confederation and wanted to have a strong government. They thought having a strong government meant having a strong country.
Eventually, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was called in order to fix the Articles of Confederation. Many people were starting to realize how weak it was and how it was harming the country. While the original goal was just to amend the Articles, they ended up getting scrapped altogether and the United States Constitution was created instead.
The United States Constitution fixed the<u> major problem of having a weak government</u>. With the new constitution, the government now had power. They could create and enforce laws, but the government was separated into branches in order to keep the balance of power in check. They could now tax the states, so they could pay war debts and better the country. They could also regulate trade, draft soldiers, and do other things that are much needed by the government.
Although many people were worried about the government obtaining power, the Bill of Rights was created in order to protect the rights and powers of the citizens.
I know the 2nd and the 3rd one are correct.
Hey there,
Your question states: <span>Which of the following individuals would most likely be a patrician in the Roman Empire?
Your correct answer would be "a</span><span> wealthy senator". Patrician were known to be a wealthy senator.
Hope this helps.
~Jurgen</span>
General George Marshall excelled mainly as an outstanding organizer. He was appointed as Army Chief of Staff in 1939 and was able to transform the US army which at the time was a weak force of 189,000 men equipped with antiquated and poor equipment into a powerful fighting force of over eight million well-equipped and thoroughly trained American servicemen. This expansion and modernization of the armed forces meant an increase of forty times the original size in just three years (1942). He also chose many of the outstanding American generals that were instrumental in winning the war, such as Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley. He also wrote the plans for Operation Overlord, the future invasion of Nazi-occupied France (Normandy).
Douglas MacArthur was initially very incompetent in the initial stages of the War of the Pacific. He learned about the Pearl Harbor attack and did not implement a plan to prepare for the upcoming Japanese offensive. His inaction caused the Far East Air Force to be all but eradicated after a surprise Japanese air raid. He also spread his American and Filipino forces too thin in the defense of Luzon and had to retreat calamitously, leaving enormous quantities of military materials in the hands of the invading Japanese ground and naval forces. In the middle of his flight to Australia he accepted 500,000 $ from Filipino president Quezon for his pre-war service in the Philippines. He left with his family and left all the American and Filipino soldiers in Batan become POWs of the Japanese. Then was awarded the Medal of honor in order to dismiss Japanese propaganda depicting him as an incompetent coward.
He was appointed Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific Area in 1942. He was however able to learn from his mistakes and reorganized in order to reclaim all the lost territories. It would take him four years to reclaim Papua, New Guinea, the Philippines and was later tasked with the Occupation of japan in the end of the war.
