Will mark brainliest !!

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.  

you didn't post an image.

fairly positive it is 4

nationalization is the set of dispositions and operations by means of which the state assumes, in varied form, the administration of private companies, of groups of companies or of the totality of certain economic sectors previously managed by individuals, such as the land portions. nationalization is the opposite of privatization. it is also called nationalization of the means of production, although a nationalized company can be previously both national and foreign ownership. nationalization or nationalization is a very characteristic action of ideologies such as socialism and nationalism.