It allowed the Federal government to limit free speech during times of war. An example is if the United States was currently in war and you outwardly said in public ”the war is meaningless, our government is not supporting freedom, the military is making our soldiers fight for oil companies don't join!”. The government may arrest you because you outwardly spoke out against it in times of war.
The United States Congress adopted "The Land Ordinance of 1785" on May 20, 1785.
At that time Congress did not have the power to raise revenue by direct taxation of the citizens of the United States of America. Therefore, the main goal of the ordinance was to raise money through selling land of the colonies acquired from Britain.Also,<span>It helped promote education in newly acquired territory.
Therefore,as a conclusion,the best answer is option
</span><span>A)It helped promote education in newly acquired territory.</span>
Answer:
You need to show the boxes
Explanation:
It's basically saying that the more you think of yourself, the higher quality you think you deserve, and if you are 'the smaller man', or the man who is humble, you know that comfort is more important than quality or price.
The answer to this really depends on what prism you are viewing it from?
As a globe, we are pretty opposed to imperialism these days. China has started to dabble a little more in the South China Sea but we mostly have our nation states and there isn't really a lot of movement.
That was not the case at the time of annexation.
So, is it ethical to subsume a sovereign nation? No
Was it strategically justifiable at the time? Yes. If the United States had not annexed Hawaii, the Empire of Japan likely would have stepped in.
Hawaii has enormous strategic value and was then justifiable at the time of annexation.
That being said, and I hope this is an obvious statement, imperialism is not a good thing and is ethically problematic.
