The Tokugawa rule which means an outdated or old-fashioned military government in Japan affects the people by unleashing disorderly forces over time. Taxes on the smallholders and agricultural laborers of low social status were set at fixed amounts that did not account for price rises in economic value. With this result tax earnings collected by the samurai landowners were good for nothing and less overtime which oftentimes lead to many conflicts between decent but needy samurai and well-to-do peasants. Servants held hereditary lands and provided service in the military and respect to their lords. Provinces had a degree of authority and were allowed an independent government in exchange for the faithfulness to the shogun.
Whiskey Rebellion--Kyff wrote a paper on the Whiskey Rebellion which he saw as a test of the US for its first internal "crisis".
Kyff argued in his paper that the federal whiskey tax led to a rebellion that tested the president and the country of how they will deal with internal rebellion against federal power.
In my opinion I would've felt uncomfortable. This is because I wouldn't want 5 random people living in my house.
I believe the answer you are looking for is Senate Leader(s)
<span>The answer that doesn't fit with the Bush Doctrine is A) that the US would go to war in order to preserve the freedom of the seas and protect neutral shipping.
The George W. Bush administration believed that the best defense against terrorism in the world was to use American power to spread democratic values in countries that were potential breeding grounds for terrorist activity. This sort of policy agenda was part of the "neoconservative" view of a number of President George W. Bush's advisers -- especially some who had also served in the administration of his father, President George H.W. Bush.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, there was a desire to push American values and not be shy about doing so with the use of American military might. The core ideas of the "Bush Doctrine" were that the United States could pursue foreign policy goals on its own (without need for United Nations partnerships), that preemptive strikes were allowable against countries that harbored terrorists, and that regime change for the sake of promoting democracy was a good strategy. </span>
