Alexis de Tocqueville would most likely agree with the conclusion that <u>A. The United States and France</u> both were born of violent revolution and achieved democracy after decades of political turmoil.
<h3>Who was Alexis de Tocqueville?</h3>
Alexis de Tocqueville was a French writer, political scientist, historian, and politician.
Alexis de Tocqueville is best known for writing a masterpiece, "Democracy in America."
Thus, Alexis de Tocqueville would most likely agree with the conclusion that <u>A. The United States and France</u> both were born of violent revolution and achieved democracy after decades of political turmoil.
Learn more about Alexis de Tocqueville at brainly.com/question/19293152
#SPJ1
The two reasons:
- Britain intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram
- Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare
Context/detail:
Public outrage in the US against the Germans swept the nation following the sinking of the British ocean liner, <em>Lusitania</em> -- but that happened before 1917. When a German U-boat (submarine) sank the Lusitania in May, 1915, over 1,000 persons were killed, including more than 100 Americans. The passenger liner was targeted by the Germans because they suspected weapons were being shipped to Britain in the cargo hold of the ship.
Germany managed to stave off American entry into the war at the time by pledging to stop submarine attacks. But a couple years later they resumed such attacks, and there was also an intercepted telegram (the "Zimmerman Telegram") that showed Germany was trying to secure Mexico as an ally against the United States.
In 1917, the US declared war on Germany in response.
Answer:
<u>B. It set limits on the power of the British monarchy.</u>
Explanation:
The Magna Carta (1215) was a charter of rights written by a group of Barons of England that were tired of King John’s tyrannic rule. The charter established a more powerful parliament, granted some liberties of free men such as the right to a trial by jury before punishment and reduced the power of King John, whose rule was perceived as abusive especially toward people and in his imposition of high levies, even in the absence of war.
Its significance lies in the fact that it set limits on the power of the British monarchy by making the King subject to the law, meaning that from that point on, the British crown had to be accountable for their actions under the law, just like everyone else.
