The author makes a very strong argument for the significance of WWI in the this article. In no more than 30 words, please sum up the author’s main argument and back it up with at least two pieces of evidence.

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.  

the image shown is not a reliable source. it is not a photograph taken of the event, and it is not a painting created by someone who witnessed the event. the image can be considered yellow journalism because it is sensational and exaggerated. the explosion did not likely cause bodies to fly in the air or create a large fireball, as shown here. the image was created to make the american public angry about the explosion, not to show what actually happened.

the painting is not reliable.

the painting is exaggerated.

the painting is inaccurate.

the painting was created to make the public angry, not to show what really happened.

the answer is federalism. hope this and good luck on your assignment!

the articles of confederation created a federal _congress_ comprised of representatives from the then 13 states.

the answer is congress.