In the traumatic aftermath of World War One, many questioned whether man's civilization had revealed a dooming weakness, and if one of its greatest achievements—democracy—was only a fragile ideal. Did the war to make the world "safe for democracy" expose a world unfit for democracy? And what about America? For 130 years the republic had survived chronic growing pains and a murderous civil war, but was it, too, displaying signs of dissolution and rot? Voter apathy, corruption in city politics, the "tyranny of the fifty-one percent," the suppression of black voting in the South—American democracy seemed worn, cracked, and vulnerable.
plz mark me as brainliest :)
Here is how it was explained to me. WW2 was blamed pretty much entirely in Hitler, yes obviously there were so many other factors, and decisions that made the total, destruction of everything, but everyone blames Hitler for the start of it all. In this passage though, it sounds like the blame is on the other political advisers, and his foreign minister. Like they were supposed to have pushed for more meetings, or tried to make Hitler see reason.
Hope that helps
All the options are correct.
As we know before Missouri Compromise of 1820, there were 11 free states and 11 save states and so there was a balance of power between North and South. The admission of Missouri as a slave state would result the imbalance. So we see Henry Clay, a congressman came with Missouri Compromise which provided for admission of Missouri as a slave state along with Maine as a free state in order to maintain the balance of power. It also prohibited slavery in the north of 36*30 parallel, excluding Missouri. So ultimately resolved the heated issue of the time in the Senate over slave states and free states. As it was a controversial act, it was later declared unconstitutional and was repealed by Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
