B. To bring glory to their respective nations
All of these are defensible. Of course debt rises in war, and decreasing taxes will benefit an economy where taxes are no longer needed (post-scarcity.) Political and geographical boundaries are outmoded and a world without them is not only possible but existed for much of early human civilization. As for the government, a government would run more efficiently when everyone is in basic agreement with what to do and how.
I would question your teacher on this. Anyone can defend these perspectives...
Many say that Truman was justified in dropping the first bomb and it kept a land invasion of Japan from occurring but that he didn't give the Japanese enough time to surrender and that the second bomb was ethically problematic.
On January 29, 1850, the 70-year-old Clay presented a compromise. For eight months members of Congress, led by Clay, Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, debated the compromise. With the help of Stephen Douglas, a young Democrat from Illinois, a series of bills that would make up the compromise were ushered through Congress.
<span>According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.</span>
