You'll have to consider for yourself what your own thoughts are, but some of the issues were these:
The United States saw the use of the atomic bombs as a way to bring the war to an end in a way that would cost less American lives. A land invasion of Japan would have meant many American soldiers being killed in battle. However, the cost in Japanese lives was enormous by the use of the bombs, and that was not given equal consideration.
Another consideration was that the United States had been engaging in a fire-bombing campaign of Japanese cities prior to the use of atomic bombs. The fire-bombing campaigns were horrifically destructive also, but did not have the radiation after-effects of atomic bombings.
An option that could have been used rather than dropping atomic bombs was to enlist Soviet troops in a joint invasion of Japan. But the USA wanted to avoid postwar Soviet presence in Japan, and the atomic bombs were seen as a way of ending the war quickly. You can consider whether it would have been a more "moral" way of pursuing war to conduct a land invasion with Soviet assistance.
Finally, the escalation to the point of using atomic bombs was, in part, due to the Allies' insistence on an "unconditional surrender" by Japan. A second bomb was dropped at Nagasaki after the first was dropped on Hiroshima, because Japan did not submit to unconditional surrender in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing. You can consider for yourself whether some other resolution besides "unconditional surrender" was a viable option for ending the war with Japan.
C. Catholics it was the Catholics that wanted to separate.
Puritans unanimously rejected the Roman Catholic doctrine
You forgot to put the map. But I will list some states and capitals below.
Texas-Austin
Alabama-Montgomery
Arizona- Phoenix
Arkansas- Little Rock
Colorado-Denver
Delaware-Dover
California- Los Angelas
Florida- Tallahassee
If you need one that isn’t one of these states, please let me know
Answer:
The statement is false.
Explanation:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a U.S. federal law designed to ensure the equal participation of minorities, especially African Americans, in US elections.
Specifically, it abolished discriminatory illiteracy tests for potential voters, banned Gerrymandering if it discriminated against minorities, centralized federal voter registration in areas where less than 50% of the population were registered voters, and gave the U.S. Department of Justice various control over the Electoral law in areas where African Americans make up more than five percent of the population.
The debates surrounding the Voting Rights Act coincide with the culmination of the civil rights movement and the Selma-to-Montgomery marches. Martin Luther King, the then leading African-American civil rights activist, already called for such a law at a meeting with President Lyndon B. Johnson in December 1964. The president was positive about the project, but King said that such a law could not be implemented politically so shortly after the Civil Rights Act to end segregation. Johnson, who was recently re-elected with an overwhelming majority, initially wanted to focus on other areas such as poverty reduction and health care in his Great Society social reform reform project. After the events in Selma, however, he changed his attitude and assured King that he wanted to enforce the electoral law as soon as possible.
The House of Representatives passed the law on August 3, 1965 and the Senate on August 4. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it on August 6 at a ceremony at the Capitol, which was attended by numerous African-American civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King.
