"We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us that men will not adopt and carry into
execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without the
intervention of a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a
nation without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole
Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state
governments extend over the several States. To be fearful of vesting Congress,
constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes,
appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness...
What astonishing changes a few years are capable of producing! I am told that
even respectable characters speak of a monarchial form of government without
horror. From thinking proceeds speaking, thence to acting is often but a single
step. But how irrevocable and tremendous! What a triumph for the advocates
of despotism to find that we are incapable of governing ourselves, and that
systems founded on the basis of equal liberty are merely ideal and fallacious!"
---George Washington (August 15, 1786)
1. What does Washington argue is the problem with the national government under
the Articles of Confederation? What must be done to solve the problem in his
view?

there are more but this is what i can come up

new york- english

new orleans- french

new hampshire- english

new mexico- spanish

new jersey- english

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!

the correct option is a

explanation:

the movement mainly consisted of white farmers from the south who sought the relieve of farmers from their hardship. hope this !

by kd