Answer:
The North was the center of the industrial revolution. There were more factories, jobs, and people in the region, causing the cities to become large and densely populated.
Explanation:
<h2>Answer:</h2>
<u>The term "</u><u>Production possibility </u><u>Frontier" (or Curve) is a diagram showing the maximum amount of goods and/or services an economy can produce.</u>
<h2>Explanation:</h2>
The production possibility curves is a hypothetical representation of the amount of two different goods. This is a curve depicting all maximum output possibilities for two goods. In other words production possibility curve measures the maximum output of two goods using a fixed amount of input.
Answer:
En el proceso de independencia de las colonias americanas, tuvo una clara injerencia el conflicto político entre Francia y Gran Bretaña, quienes se enfrentaron tanto a nivel europeo como en sus colonias en América, África y el resto del mundo.
Así, mientras toda Europa se involucraba en la Guerra de los Siete Años y las Guerras Napoleónicas, las potencias coloniales descuidaban sus colonias en América para proteger así sus intereses en sus territorios principales. De esta manera, se generaba un vacío de poder que era aprovechado por los movimientos patrióticos en todo el continente. Un claro ejemplo de ello fue España, que invadida por Francia durante las Guerras Napoleónicas por haberse aliado con Gran Bretaña, descuidó sus colonias en América generando la corriente independentista que tuvo lugar en el continente a inicios de los 1800s.
Answer:
The correct answer is C) Schenck v. the United States (1919)
Explanation:
The Schenck v. the United States (1919) case has great importance in the history of the country. Two activists, Elizabeth Baer and Charles Schenck were writing against the military draft.
They even distributed pamphlets discouraging people from joining the military and promoted a rebellion against forceful draft.
They were charged under the Espionage Act of 1917. In their defense, they stated how they were only practicing their right to free speech.
However, the Judge did not rule in their favour stating that a free speech is not protected under the first Amendment if it creates a 'clear and present danger'
