When comparing china with latin america in the 1920s and 1930s, to what extent was marxism a viable policy?
a. in latin america, there were merely dicussions in university settings while in china, marxists vied for control of government.
b. both latin america and chinese reformers were able to build political parties around marxist principles.
c. the chinese government persecuted marxists while latin american marxists were ignored by their governments.
d. neither the chinese nor latin american public believed that marxism offered any improvements for them.

legal rights and freedom of speech.i hope that it is correct.

brainliest if correct

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.