Was Charles Lindbergh advocating for neutrality or involvement? Provide one reason that Lindbergh gives to support his position

Social Studies

1 answer:

andrew-mc [135]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

Neutrality

Explanation:

Charles Lindbergh was the son of a United States Congressman, so is easy to assume he had some political understanding due to this context.

He was the first person to fly alone, through the Atlantic ocean, without stopping. This achievement made him an idol to millions.

Years later, when President Franklin Roosevelt was puhhing an illegal campaign to involve the US into the European war, he took advantage of the fame he had obtained, and actively opposed to this action. It is considered that he became the voice of the great majority of people from the US by taking that position.

He began giving speeches throughout the country, one that was very important was on "Neutrality and War," October 13, 1939.

You might be interested in

Civil liberties in Latin America vary. This means that

Nadusha1986 [10]

Answer:

Explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Passing laws creating courts and collecting taxes are a example of

viktelen [127]

Passing laws creating courts and collecting taxes are a example of some of the explicit rights given to political bodies by the US Constitution.

4 0

3 years ago

Who believed power should not be concentrated in the hands of one individual

masha68 [24]

The options to this question are:

A. John Locke
B. Baron de Montesquieu
C. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
D. Cotton Mather

The best answer is:

John Locke believed power should not be concentrated in the hands of one individual.

John Locke was among the foremost powerful political philosophers of the trendy amount. within the 2 Treatises of state, he defended the claim that men are naturally free and equal against claims that God had created all individuals naturally subject to a monarch.

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Where are trade winds on the map

andrew11 [14]

Where is the map tho???????

8 0

3 years ago

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court struck down state laws outlawing the use of contraceptives on the basis of

PolarNik [594]

Answer:

judicial activism

Explanation:

Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that in this scenario this decision is an example of judicial activism. This term refers to a court ruling that is suspected of having been made on the basis of a personal opinion as opposed to an actual existing law. Such as in this case since the court made a ruling on something that is not not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

7 0

3 years ago