It would be in "D. Haiti" that slavery ended with revolution than by government decree, since this was the result of a massive slave uprising that ended up ultimately being successful.
<span>Invasions by Barbarian tribes <span>Economic troubles and overreliance on slave labor<span>Overexpansion and military overspending
</span></span></span>
a 1950 supreme court decision ruling that the "separate but equal " formula generally unacceptable for professional schools
sweatt v painter
In his most famous piece of work, The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli basically wrote a manual on the types of existing principalities, poiniting out the difference between each of them, on the foundations of power and, finally, on the norms of conduct that the one who aspires to be prince must adopt.
According to the author, it was not enough to achieve power; the prince should be able to keep it, and to do so, he would have to be respected by the people, acting accordingly to each circumstance, changing strategies as appropriate. The most famous saying that synthesizes the Machiavellian though is "The ends justify the means", which means that in order to remain in the custody of power (which would be the "end"), the prince is authorized to act in the most convenient manner, not necessarily needing to stick to rigid moral principles and ethical norms.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
You did not specify what war you are talking about. Trying to help you we are going to assume that you are talking about World War I.
In addition to fighting in the army, European colonies contributed to the war effort in that these colonies sent supplies and food to the war front in Europe.
European superpowers had colonies in Africa, India, and Asia, places where there were plenty of natural resources and raw materials that were much needed by European countries during World War I. Great Britain and France were the European countries that used most soldiers from their colonies after many white troops were killed on the battlefield.
