In many ways, the War of 1812 was indeed a "second revolution" because once again the Americans were up against the British, and once again they "won". This placed them with far more economic independence and pride in the nation. It gave them the respect of the world, which made for better foreign relations.
Answer:
Yes the answer is it depends on a population.Example USA must have 435 and more representatives because of the huge population
Answer:
No, I do not think it was necessary.
Explanation:
The Sedition act was uncharacteristic of the initial thoughts of the forefathers of the United States because it went against the freedom of speech and freedom of press. Although it seemed to be a quick fix to stop dissention in the U.S. with anti war sentiment, it also invalidated the very constitution for which the U.S stood on. There could have been better ways to handle it such as educating the public better on what exactly was happening, and why we might as a country needed to become involved in the war.
Answer:
The conspiracy theory of the FBI regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was that Lee Harvey Oswald acted on his own. Moreover, the death of Oswald two days later at the hands of Jack Ruby was also an independent incident, and that no other else was involved in the whole thing.
Explanation:
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy took place on November 22, 1963, while he was on a top limousine with his wife Jackie Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally, and his wife. The gunshot had come from a far distance, wounding the governor but critically injuring the President.
The FBI, along with the Warren Commission, believed or proposed the theory that the President was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald and that he acted alone. Moreover, the subsequent killing of Harvey by Jack Ruby was also found to be Ruby's own doing and does not involve anyone else.
But even though these findings were thought to be true, many still continue to question them and sought to come up with their own theories.
1) ariel spying over Cuba produced pictures that showed missile silos being built in Cuba. The design of the silos made it clear they were designed for missiles, and it made no sense for Cuba to put in anything less than nuclear missiles there. Missiles they could not build themselves, so had to come from the Soviet Union.
2) Only minutes. A launch from the Soviet Union to the US only takes about 20 minutes. Depending on the range of the missiles put into the silos, warning time would have been anywhere from 3-10 minutes. Not enough time to verify that it was a launch, and not a detection system malfunction, forcing America to launch immediately, or risk losing its capacity to strike back.
3) A direct attack or invasion of Cuba would have forced the Soviet Union to respond in kind. The USSR simply could not abandon Cuba, without losing all credibility among its allies and vassal states. So they would likely have struck back at the US, probably in Europe. This would have dangerously escalated the tensions, and increased the probability of nuclear war. Other officials believed that a quick,determined strike would not only eliminate the immediate threat of missiles in Cuba, but possibly overthrow the regime and force the USSR to accept the situation. The idea of a naval blockade was a compromise position. A threat of force, but one that allowed the USSR to back off. After all, so long as the missiles were not put into the silos, they were no threat.
