The Articles of Confederation withheld many powers of governance from the federal government, causing it to be simply too weak. For example, the federal government could not collect taxes, which is necessary to governance. The federal government could not properly enforce laws, since any states could decide to ignore a law it didn't like. It didn't even have judicial power as the Courts weren't invented under the Articles of Confederation.
It created a federal government that was too weak to even govern.
Hope that helped.
<span>This refers to trade with China and was coined in the very late 1890s - 1900 to describe the kind of policy that the United States wanted to promote. Technically, they wanted protection for every nation that traded in China guaranteeing equal privileges among all. A sort of "play fair" rule for everyone that tried to also protect the sovereign rights of the Chinese to prevent their country from being carved up.
</span>
<span> It was supposed to level the playing field, though most nations preferred to ignore it and play nice only when they needed to. In those years, China was ruthlessly exploited by Western powers and did little to curb some of their activities. It pretty much came to an end in the early 1930s when the Japanese militarily expanded their hold over China.
</span>
In more modern times, following the late 1970s under Deng Xiaoping, it has come to refer to China's increasing openness to foreign trade and business. Before that, it was a largely isolated country that wanted little to do with the West.
<span>The benefits today are that China is now the #2 economy in the world (having beaten Japan some time ago) because of its growth through manufacturing and trade, a rapid industrialization of the country to more modern standards, and rising quality of life within the major cities (access to goods from around the world). For many large corporations, China is seen as a huge market as well as a giant source of cheap but reliable labor.
</span><span>
I hope that this is the answer that you were looking for and it has helped you.
</span>
Answer:
The answer is that separate facilities for white and black people was constitutional as long as the facilities were equal.
Explanation:
Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in American constitutional law that justified systems of segregation.
Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group’s public facilities was to remain equal.
Although the Constitutional doctrine required equality, the facilities and social services offered to African-Americans were almost always of lower quality than those offered to white Americans.
The doctrine of “separate but equal” was legitimized in the 1896 Supreme Court case, Plessy v. Ferguson.
I believe the answer is democracy, religion and ethnic equality. His goal of having these three made it possible to unite India having a non-violent act to attain it. The next generation was influenced and inspired by Gandhi and followed him.
