Answer:
diplomacy of the United States—particularly during President William Howard Taft's presidential term—was a form of American foreign policy to minimize the use or threat of military force and instead further its aims in Latin America and East Asia through the use of its economic power by guaranteeing loans made to foreign countries.[1] In his message to Congress on 3 December 1912, Taft summarized the policy of Dollar Diplomacy:
The diplomacy of the present administration has sought to respond to modern ideas of commercial intercourse. This policy has been characterized as substituting dollars for bullets. It is one that appeals alike to idealistic humanitarian sentiments, to the dictates of sound policy and strategy, and to legitimate commercial aims.[2]
Dollar diplomacy was not new, as the use of diplomacy to promote commercial interest dates from the early years of the Republic. However, under Taft, the State Department was more active than ever in encouraging and supporting American bankers and industrialists in securing new opportunities abroad. Bailey finds that dollar diplomacy was designed to make both people in foreign lands and the American investors prosper.[3]
The concept is relevant to both Liberia, where American loans were given in 1913, and Latin America. Latin Americans tend to use the term "dollar diplomacy" disparagingly to show their disapproval of the role that the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have played in using economic, diplomatic and military power to open up foreign markets. When Woodrow Wilson became president in March 1913, he immediately canceled all support for Dollar diplomacy. Historians agree that Taft's Dollar diplomacy was a failure everywhere. In the Far East, it alienated Japan and Russia and created a deep suspicion among the other powers hostile to American motives.[4][5]
Dear Diary.
We were seeing a moment of tension, here in South Carolina, I cannot help saying that I am concerned with the result that this moment will develop, but I cannot say how much it is necessary for the well-being of our colonies.
For months I have noticed an unreasonable exploitation of the British crown, which charges us high fees and taxes, but which does not convert these taxes into improvements for our society. On the contrary, the crown refuses to organize the colony, to promote laws and even to promote the success of our stay in America, as a result, South Carolina is in a constant moment of disorganization and corruption between everything and all the elements and inhabitants of this colony.
This irresponsibility of the British crown in relation to South Carolina, makes us, the colonists, to regulate the system of taxes and taxes that we are submitted. We will not pay for something you do not consider worthy. Although I acknowledge that I have a cultural duty to England, my moral values cry out that this charge is illegal, unfair and abusive and must be combated, even if it creates a conflict between the colony and Britain.
J. E.
Answer:
Abraham Lincoln is elected the 16th president of the United States over a deeply divided Democratic Party, becoming the first Republican to win the presidency. Lincoln received only 40 percent of the popular vote but handily defeated the three other candidates: Southern Democrat John C. Breckinridge, Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, and Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas, a U.S. senator for Illinois
Explanation:
It was the the Viking.
Actually, the first person known to have settled in Greenland was Erik the Red, from Norway, who first sailed to Iceland and then to Greenland.
Separation of separation of powers and checks and balances
