Answer:
During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers. However, the relationship between the two nations was a tense one. Americans had long been wary of Soviet communism and concerned about Russian leader Joseph Stalin’s tyrannical rule of his own country. For their part, the Soviets resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a legitimate part of the international community as well as their delayed entry into World War II, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians. After the war ended, these grievances ripened into an overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity.
Postwar Soviet expansionism in Eastern Europe fueled many Americans’ fears of a Russian plan to control the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent what they perceived as American officials’ bellicose rhetoric, arms buildup and interventionist approach to international relations. In such a hostile atmosphere, no single party was entirely to blame for the Cold War; in fact, some historians believe it was inevitable.
The Cold War: Containment
By the time World War II ended, most American officials agreed that the best defense against the Soviet threat was a strategy called “containment.” In his famous “Long Telegram,” the diplomat George Kennan (1904-2005) explained the policy: The Soviet Union, he wrote, was “a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with the U.S. there can be no permanent modus vivendi [agreement between parties that disagree].” As a result, America’s only choice was the “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.” “It must be the policy of the United States,” he declared before Congress in 1947, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation…by outside pressures.” This way of thinking would shape American foreign policy for the next four decades.
Explanation:
hope this helped
Before 9/11/2001, the United States was free of anxious attacks to its land, and the U.S had no worries about any terrorists attacks that was going to occur, so they were relaxing. After 9/11 occurred, the U.S has became in shocked and wanted to make changes that would prevent terrorism. The U.S responded by being prepared, anticipating, and give out warnings. The U.S started to prepare for another terrorists attack after 9/11, they started to change the cockpits of a plane so that no one could hijack it form outside, only the pilot could open it from the inside. The U.S did anything that they could to make it safe for the people of the United States to not worry about an attack, and took all of the safety measures to do so. The U.S also started to anticipate for terrorists attack, meaning that they started to look for clues to determine whether or not someone or a group of people are going to make an attack. The U.S also made their warnings systems better, so when that there were a terrorist attack to occur, they can warn the people before it actually happens, and that is where anticipating for terrorists attacks help out a lot.
<span>a. Southern congressmen opposed the banning of slavery from the new territories
</span><span>Northern states and southern states were at odds over the potential spread of slavery in new states and what that would do to the balance of power in Congress. <span>
In 1846, Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced the proviso as an amendment to an appropriations bill in connection with the peace treaty being negotiated with Mexico. His amendment stipulated that any territory gained from Mexico would be free, not allowing slavery. Wilmot's amendment passed in the House of Representatives, but was unable to get approval in the Senate. The Compromise of 1850, a package of five bills passed by Congress in September of that year, sought to accommodate some of the issues both South and North were debating over during those years. But we know that war over the slavery issue was yet to come.</span></span>
The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk (Democrat) over Henry Clay (Whig) in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System<span> were already dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which would expose the sectional divisions within the party.</span>After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of the future status of slavery in any new territory.
Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.[2] However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party loyalty primarily to serve southern interests. Hope This Helps! Can I have Brainliest? Please:)
The Smoot-Hawley tariff, passed in June 1930, raised import tariffs to unprecedented levels, which virtually closed the US borders to foreign products. This generated a counterpart of the other countries, which also imposed tariffs on American products
