URGENT ILL GIVE BRAINLIEST !Would you have sided with the Imperialists (those who were for taking on more territory) or the Anti-Imperialists (those who were against taking on more territory)? and How would you convince someone on the other side to agree with your Point of View? (Use specific details to sway your opponent)

if you are talking about current time the answer is no

if you are talking about when the colonies were developing the answer is yes

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 church governed the society after the empire fell.   constantine took charge of rome and ended the confusion which had over religion and made christianity as the only religion and that started ruling the roman empire. he also divided the empire into two and fortified the eastern part.   he ruled the eastern part.