Answer:
According to an understanding reached between the United States and the Soviet Union in the last days of the war, Soviet troops would occupy the parts of Korea north of the 38th parallel and US troops would occupy those south of this dividing line. ... With this, the Korean question was referred to the United Nations.
Explanation:
Answer:
A is the correct answer
Explain:
You can easily rule out D because there are still conflicts to this day. Now you have it easier to get the right answer. WW2 was the first truly modern war, in the civil war and evem WW1 they still waited to see the whites of peoples eyes before they fired. And the majority of the battles were actually fought in the north.
Answer:
Answering the question "How was the issue of slavery addressed in the U.S Constitution" is a little tricky because the words "slave" or "slavery" were not used in the original Constitution, and the word "slavery" is very hard to find even in the current Constitution. However, the issues of the rights of enslaved people, its related trade and practice, in general, have been addressed in several places of the Constitution; namely, Article I, Articles IV and V and the 13th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution nearly 80 years after the signing of the original document. However, slavery had been tacitly protected in the original Constitution through clauses such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, in which three-fifths of the slave population was counted for representation in the United States House of Representatives.
Explanation:
When the Constitution was made in 1787, slavery was a powerful institution and such a heated topic at the Constitutional Convention. The majority of disagreements came when the representatives from slave-holding states felt their "peculiar" institution was being threatened. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and a slave owner, opposed the pro-slavery delegates and went on to say it would be, "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." He didn't believe that slavery should be justified by federal law. Once the Constitution was ratified, slavery was never mentioned by name. Shouldn't this be obvious support that the Constitution did not support slavery? Not exactly.
