1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
rosijanka [135]
2 years ago
12

American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate

has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours
According to the document, what was one effect of industrialization in the United States?

A.Factories and Farmers were producing more goods and crops than Americans could consume
B.Overcrowding in cities
C.Low wages for factory workers
History
1 answer:
krok68 [10]2 years ago
8 0

Answer:

A

Explanation:

The article seems to be talking about the american farmers and factories producing surplus of goods.

You might be interested in
What amendment and clause is this excerpt from? All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdi
Paul [167]
It's the 14th amendment hope that helps:)
7 0
3 years ago
During the early colonial period, many differences began to develop between the northern and southern regions of the English col
Thepotemich [5.8K]
Southern Colonies- reason for settlement
The Southern Colonies were settled mainly for economic gain(commercial gain).
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Opposition to Asian immigrants led to the 1907 Gentleman’s Agreement with Japan. This informal agreement stated that
bagirrra123 [75]

Answer: It's the first one

3 0
2 years ago
Explain MacMillan's conclusion that Wilson "remained a Southerner in some ways all his life." Describe how Wilson's background a
Murljashka [212]

Answer:

paki basa nalng .

Explanation:

On December 4, 1918, the George Washington sailed out of New York with the American delegation to the Peace Conference on board. Guns fired salutes, crowds along the waterfront cheered, tugboats hooted and Army planes and dirigibles circled overhead. Robert Lansing, the American secretary of state, released carrier pigeons with messages to his relatives about his deep hope for a lasting peace. The ship, a former German passenger liner, slid out past the Statue of Liberty to the Atlantic, where an escort of destroyers and battleships stood by to accompany it and its cargo of heavy expectations to Europe.

On board were the best available experts, combed out of the universities and the government; crates of reference materials and special studies; the French and Italian ambassadors to the United States; and Woodrow Wilson. No other American president had ever gone to Europe while in office. His opponents accused him of breaking the Constitution; even his supporters felt he might be unwise. Would he lose his great moral authority by getting down to the hurly-burly of negotiations? Wilson's own view was clear: the making of the peace was as important as the winning of the war. He owed it to the peoples of Europe, who were crying out for a better world. He owed it to the American servicemen. "It is now my duty," he told a pensive Congress just before he left, "to play my full part in making good what they gave their life's blood to obtain." A British diplomat was more cynical; Wilson, he said, was drawn to Paris "as a debutante is entranced by the prospect of her first ball."

Wilson expected, he wrote to his great friend Edward House, who was already in Europe, that he would stay only to arrange the main outlines of the peace settlements. It was not likely that he would remain for the formal Peace Conference with the enemy. He was wrong. The preliminary conference turned, without anyone's intending it, into the final one, and Wilson stayed for most of the crucial six months between January and June 1919. The question of whether or not he should have gone to Paris, which exercised so many of his contemporaries, now seems unimportant. From Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta to Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton at Camp David, American presidents have sat down to draw borders and hammer out peace agreements. Wilson had set the conditions for the armistices which ended the Great War. Why should he not make the peace as well?

Although he had not started out in 1912 as a foreign policy president, circumstances and his own progressive political principles had drawn him outward. Like many of his compatriots, he had come to see the Great War as a struggle between the forces of democracy, however imperfectly represented by Britain and France, and those of reaction and militarism, represented all too well by Germany and Austria-Hungary. Germany's sack of Belgium, its unrestricted submarine warfare and its audacity in attempting to entice Mexico into waging war on the United States had pushed Wilson and American public opinion toward the Allies. When Russia had a democratic revolution in February 1917, one of the last reservations that the Allies included an autocracy vanished. Although he had campaigned in 1916 on a platform of keeping the country neutral, Wilson brought the United States into the war in April 1917. He was convinced that he was doing the right thing. This was important to the son of a Presbyterian minister, who shared his father's deep religious conviction, if not his calling.

Wilson was born in Virginia in 1856, just before the Civil War. Although he remained a Southerner in some ways all his life in his insistence on honor and his paternalistic attitudes toward women and blacks he also accepted the war's outcome. Abraham Lincoln was one of his great heroes, along with Edmund Burke and William Gladstone. The young Wilson was at once highly idealistic and intensely ambitious. After four very happy years at Princeton and an unhappy stint as a lawyer, he found his first career in teaching and writing. By 1890 he was back at Princeton, a star member of the faculty. In 1902 he became its president, supported virtually unanimously by the trustees, faculty and students.

6 0
2 years ago
The United States leads the world in energy consumption. Which effect of energy use is the source of the greatest disagreement a
Naddika [18.5K]
This is a bit tricky, but in general, it is climate change that is the source of the greatest disagreement among American politicians, because some people still think it doesn't exist. 
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • (Socialism, Communism, Capitalism). How do these economic theories lend themselves to certain types of governments(Monarchy, Oli
    9·1 answer
  • Which battles were Allied victories in the Pacific campaign? Check all that apply.
    5·2 answers
  • What three factors were part of european imperialism
    13·1 answer
  • Which of the following is NOT a major Canadian natural resource?
    7·2 answers
  • Why is giles cory expelled from court? why won't danforth hear his evidence? why is cory arrested?
    13·1 answer
  • When it first formend , the Republican Party supported
    11·1 answer
  • What is political socialization and what factors lead to it?
    15·1 answer
  • For your essay, you are going to focus on a specific topic (The daily life of a slave) include some ideas for sources you can us
    14·1 answer
  • Hi guys I’d really appreciate some help (:
    9·2 answers
  • Which of the following had the greatest impact on the institution of slavery in the United States in the first quarter of
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!