World War I, often known as the First World War or the Great War, was an international struggle that engulfed the majority of the European countries, as well as Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions, between 1914 and 1918.
How did the government justify involvement?
The US was not equipped for battle. It had to quickly assemble an army and provide it with transportation, food, and weapons. The entire population had to put in a lot of work to accomplish it. Young men had to sign up for the military, and the army started to conscript males into its ranks.
The task of feeding American troops and our allies, especially Great Britain and France, posed a significant challenge.
To raise money for the war, the government sold bonds. An interest-bearing loan to the government was known as a bond. Local committees organised bond drives in each municipality, complete with patriotic rallies and door-to-door solicitations, to boost sales.
To learn more about government justify involvement in world war i from the given link:
brainly.com/question/14560021
#SPJ4
Answer: Challenged Louisiana segregation legislation by refusing to move from a "whites only" railcar in 1896.
Explanation:
Answer:
Migrating due to limited resources could be a reason why the ended up in North America
Explanation:
Answer:Machiavelli’s realism
Niccolò Machiavelli, whose work derived from sources as authentically humanistic as those of Ficino, proceeded along a wholly opposite course. A throwback to the chancellor-humanists Salutati, Bruni, and Poggio, he served Florence in a similar capacity and with equal fidelity, using his erudition and eloquence in a civic cause. Like Vittorino and other early humanists, he believed in the centrality of historical studies, and he performed a signally humanistic function by creating, in La mandragola (1518; The Mandrake), the first vernacular imitation of Roman comedy. His unswerving concentration on human weakness and institutional corruption suggests the influence of Boccaccio; and, like Boccaccio, he used these reminders less as topical satire than as practical gauges of human nature. In one way at least, Machiavelli is more humanistic (i.e., closer to the classics) than the other humanists, for while Vittorino and his school ransacked history for examples of virtue, Machiavelli (true to the spirit of Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, and Tacitus) embraced all of history—good, evil, and indifferent—as his school of reality. Like Salutati, though perhaps with greater self-awareness, Machiavelli was ambiguous as to the relative merits of republics and monarchies. In both public and private writings—especially the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1531; Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy)—he showed a marked preference for republican government, but in The Prince (1532) he developed, with apparent approval, a model of radical autocracy. For this reason, his goals have remained unclear.
Explanation:
Answer:
cause nobody believed that it had aright to speak
