Hi there!
From what what this question is saying it sounds like that the Americans being used as "insurance policies to guarantee the safe delivery of munitions" must mean that the Americans were to insure safe transport of the munitions of war from location to location. So, Senator Norris must mean that the munitions of war are guaranteed safe transport by American citizens used as insurance policies.
<em>Hope this helps!</em>
<em>-WolfieWolfFromSketch</em>
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
<span>The phrase actually refers is the what by now should be the well-known history of the U.S. supporting military coups all over South and Central America. Many of the officers involved in the coups with documented violation of human rights were trained by the U.S. in the so-called School of Americas renamed the Western Hemisphere for Institute for Security of Cooperation. </span><span>
</span><span>If you look back at the history of the U.S, you'll see a number of wars or otherwise extensive conflicts averaging every 20-30 years. This rabid aggression and the use of extensive deception are among the reasons U.S. presence is not only resented in Central/South America but currently in areas such as the Middle East.
<em>Hope this helped! :)</em>
</span>
"The Salerno invasion would not have occurred"
Answer:
darn no one answered ... how sad
Explanation:
