Why would Americans view the Compromise of 1850 as a final solution to the sectional controversy that begin with the Wilmot Proviso in 1846?

byzantine empire is the answer i think you are looking for.

hope this : )

i'll tell you everything i know

explanation:

the american entry into world war i came in april 1917, after more than two and a half years of efforts by president woodrow wilson to keep the united states out of the war.

apart from an anglophile element urging early support for the british, american public opinion reflected that of the president: the sentiment for neutrality was particularly strong among irish americans, german americans, and scandinavian americans, as well as among church leaders and among women in general. on the other hand, even before world war i had broken out, american opinion had been more negative toward germany than toward any other country in europe. over time, especially after reports of atrocities in belgium in 1914 and following the sinking of the passenger liner rms lusitania in 1915, american citizens increasingly came to see germany as the aggressor in europe.

wilson, as president, made virtually all the key decisions over foreign policy. while the country was at peace american banks made huge loans to britain and france, which were used mainly to buy munitions, raw materials, and food from across the atlantic. until 1917, wilson made minimal preparations for a land war and kept the united states army on a small peacetime footing, despite increasing demands for enhanced preparedness. he did, however, expand the united states navy.

in 1917, with russia experiencing political upheaval, and with britain and france low on credit, germany appeared to have the upper hand in europe, while the ottoman empire, germany's ally, held on to its territory in modern-day iraq, syria and israel. at this point germany decided to resume unrestricted submarine warfare. its goal was to starve britain into surrender, although it realized that this would almost certainly bring the united states into the war. germany also made a secret offer to mexico regain territories lost in the mexican–american war in an encoded telegram known as the zimmerman telegram, which was intercepted by british intelligence. publication of that communique outraged americans just as german u-boats started sinking american merchant ships in the north atlantic. wilson then asked congress for "a war to end all wars" that would "make the world safe for democracy", and congress voted to declare war on germany on april 6, 1917.

on december 7, 1917, the u.s. declared war on austria-hungary.

u.s. troops began arriving on the western front in large numbers in 1918.

i hope this uwu

answer; i believe the correct answer is (desert storm);

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is