Answer: A. a disagreement between the states over representation in Congress.
The main disagreement was over whether representation would be the same for all states, or based on a state's population size. Then there was also a question, for basing representation on population size, about whether slaves counted in a state's population or not.
The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise were worked out during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to resolve these issues.
- The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. Initially, a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature was envisioned. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
- The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
Carnegie used his money to build libraries both in the U.S.
as well as other countries so that people would benefit from others in terms of
knowledge. He also helped establish
schools so that more people will have access to education.
Answer: Each country had its own agenda about the post-war world.
Context/explanation:
Churchill in particular, along with Roosevelt, pushed strongly for Stalin to allow free elections to take place in the nations of Europe after the war. At that time Stalin agreed, but there was a strong feeling by the other leaders that he might renege on that promise. The Soviets never did allow those free elections to occur. Later, Winston Churchill wrote, "Our hopeful assumptions were soon to be falsified." Stalin and the Soviets felt they needed the Eastern European nations as satellites to protect their own interests. So one key point of disagreement between Stalin and the other two was over the direction things would take in Eastern Europe after the war.
While Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were on the same page in many ways, there were also key differences between them. As noted by The Churchill Project of Hillsdale College, "FDR, ever the optimist, believed (or wanted to believe) that Stalin could be convinced that the West was not committed to destruction of the Soviet regime." Churchill had a much more skeptical view of Stalin and the Soviet Union and approached the relationship in a firmer fashion. Roosevelt had hoped to continue cooperation with the USSR. That changed under Truman, who took over the US Presidency after FDR's death. Truman was strongly anti-communist in his stance.
Another difference between Roosevelt and Churchill pertained to colonialism and imperialism. Again as noted by The Churchill Project: "Over colonialism. Roosevelt firmly believed European colonialism had been a major cause of World War I, and that it had continued to be a source of international disputes and tensions before World War II. Churchill had sworn defend the realm, which, when he took office, included the British Empire." As it happened, after World War II, colonialism's days were numbered and independence movements broke out around the world where imperial powers had dominated.
Answer:
the president does so the answer is executive branch.
Explanation:
