Answer:
Because it lets them have equal say with other states
Explanation:
States with smaller populations favor having a set number of representatives in Congress because it allows them to still have an influence on politics. If representation in a body of power depends on population size, then the states with a larger population will have more representatives, and therefore the interests of the larger states will be pushed more, while the smaller states' voices will be drowned out. Larger states would most likely prefer representation based on population because it gives them more say on politics and because it serves the interests of the majority of the overall population.
Answer: I agree with the right side(republicans) because they are more conservative. The gas prices begin to lower, prices like food, clothes, etc. are lower, Health care is easier to find, and Jobs are easier to find plus viruses don't get spread around as much.
Explanation:
Answer:
It freed slaves only in the states over which the Union government had no enforcement authority.
Explanation:
This is correct
Answer:
Japanese aircraft carriers had approached Hawaii unnoticed.
As a result of Japan’s attack on pearl Harbor thousands of American died and the Us declared war on Japan.
The surprise attack of Japan at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941 had killed many Americans and destroyed American ships and Airplanes along with USS Arizona, the crown of US Navy.
However, Americans have no intention in joining the Allied forces in the World War II, the drastic incident at the Pearl Harbor made them to join the war. American president FDR declared war on Japan. This made the Germany to declare war on America. The triangular declaration of war made the Americans to involve in the World War II, completely.
Answer:
Irrespective of its genuine strategic objectives or its complex historical consequences, the campaign in Palestine during the first world war was seen by the British government as an invaluable exercise in propaganda. Keen to capitalize on the romantic appeal of victory in the Holy Land, British propagandists repeatedly alluded to Richard Coeur de Lion's failure to win Jerusalem, thus generating the widely disseminated image of the 1917-18 Palestine campaign as the 'Last' or the 'New' Crusade. This representation, in turn, with its anti-Moslem overtones, introduced complicated problems for the British propaganda apparatus, to the point (demonstrated here through an array of official documentation, press accounts and popular works) of becoming enmeshed in a hopeless web of contradictory directives. This article argues that the ambiguity underlying the representation of the Palestine campaign in British wartime propaganda was not a coincidence, but rather an inevitable result of the complex, often incompatible, historical and religious images associated with this particular front. By exploring the cultural currency of the Crusading motif and its multiple significations, the article suggests that the almost instinctive evocation of the Crusade in this context exposed inherent faultlines and tensions which normally remained obscured within the self-assured ethos of imperial order. This applied not only to the relationship between Britain and its Moslem subjects abroad, but also to rifts within metropolitan British society, where the resonance of the Crusading theme depended on class position, thus vitiating its projected propagandistic effects even among the British soldiers themselves.
Explanation:
