The Manhattan Project was a secret military project created in 1942 to produce the first US nuclear weapon. It was originally a race against the Germans to be the first to make a bomb.
Eventually, though, Japan was not surrendering in WW2. Japan's system of dying for their country being extremely honorable and having to take part in the war or facing serious consequences made it hard for the US to defeat them. Harry S. Truman ordered this bomb to bring the war to a speedy end. The result was the five-ton bomb over the Japenese city of Hiroshima and eventually Nagasaki.
Other solutions would've been to invade, but Truman must've seen it as losing American lives too and that this was the best way to end the war. We also could've waited before dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki because we heard no news from Japan, but that was just in two days. It was very quick to rush for so many lives.
I hoped this helped! This is what I learned from my teachers but here is a link to more solutions regarding the atomic bomb:
https://aeon.co/conversations/what-options-were-there-for-the-united-states-regarding-the-atomic-bom...
I believe the movement of water is known as the ocean current.
The correct answer is A) Slavery would be abolished in Washington DC.
The Compromise of 1850 was a critical law, as it helped to prevent the Civil War from starting in the 1850's. Due to America's expansion into the west and the newly gained territory after the Mexican American War, Northern and Southern politicians were arguing constantly over whether or not slavery will exist in these new territories.
To make both sides satisfied, Henry Clay helped to develop the Compromise of 1850.This included California becoming a free state, New Mexico and Utah using popular sovereignty to determine whether or not slavery would exist, and the slave trade would be outlawed in Washington DC. However, this law said nothing about the actual institution of slavery in DC.
MPs
The main reason it took so long to abolish the slave trade was simply because the pro-slave trade lobby had too many important and powerful figures in the establishment. The plantation owners, the merchants and those living in Britain, some of them MP’s, were well organised, as well as being powerful and wealthy enough to bribe other MPs to support them.
Prime Minister William Pitt
William Pitt talks to the House of Commons about the French Declaration of Wars
William Pitt talks to the House of Commons about the French Declaration of Wars
The Prime Minister William Pitt had been a supporter of abolition, but the war with France changed his views. During the war he did not want to upset the cabinet ministers that were mostly against abolition. Therefore he withdrew his support for the abolitionists. Additionally the events in St Domingue convinced Pitt that to abolish slavery would be a disaster.
King George III
King George III was against the abolition movement, as was his son, the Duke of Clarence. Support for abolition in Parliament was now restricted to the committed few.
1806 Change of government
The new Prime Minister, Lord Grenville actively promoted fellow abolitionists to cabinet. More MPs had committed themselves to abolition during the 1805 election campaign.
1806 Parliamentary Bill
Poster advertising a meeting about abolishing slavery
The Foreign Slave Trade Abolition Bill of 1806 represented a change of strategy. Rather than have Wilberforce represent yet another straightforward abolition bill, the parliamentary abolitionists secretly agreed to pretend to 'ignore' a Foreign Slave Trade Abolition Bill, which was instead sold as an anti-French measure to the House of Commons.
The Bill was designed to prevent British merchants from importing slaves into the territories of foreign powers.
It was only on the third reading of the Bill, that the pro-slavery lobby realised what was really at stake behind the Bill. It would have been difficult to oppose it because the Government presented it as a way to win the Napoleonic war.
Yes, I do think so.
The reason for this is that I think it would be likely that people born and raised in America would feel that Great Britain, which was far away and did not understand Americans' needs and situations, should not rule over them. So I feel that a similar struggle for independence would have happened anyway.
