What was the minimum population required to apply for statehood in the US?

Is there a known first reference to art being ordered and paid for ahead of time? Or is it just assumed that it's been going on for as long as art-as-a-trade has been a thing?

As far as I understand, the region known as Prussia does not map exactly to the current German state, but the Prussian Federation was a polity that existed over parts of most of modern Germany.

What is the history that lead from the Prussia, as a European power, to modern Germany. I know it's a complex story, so we can skip the complex parts of the rise of the Weimar Republic and Reich, but, as an American, I don't fully understand the historical narrative that relates the two.

For instance, the Battle of Kircholm the Hussars went 1000 vs. 10,000 Swedish infantry, or the Battle of Klushino in which it was 40,000 swedes to a mere 4000 Hussars. Correct me if I'm wrong on those numbers please.

(By Celtic I mean the Indo-European people from Iron Age to Medieval Europe)

As far as I know the Celts had no written language (please correct me if I am wrong), but have there been Celtic songs or music that has survived? If so, what are some examples? And if not, what may be the closest thing or earliest example?

German officials had to know the absolute hopelessness of a Mexican invasion of the U.S...seems they had little to gain other than further than U.S. combat troops in Europe. However, the war was shortened by at least a year with direct U.S involvement, the main benefactors being France and Great Britain of course. Not sure how this sub feels about conspiracies, any thoughts?

although there are huge quantities of information available on the disarmament, there is very little on the run up to nuclear armament. was it simply 'because they can' or was there a real and present danger that required the deterrent? additionally, what was the South African public's reaction to the program?

For example, when Spain settled South America, how many generations were there before someone could be called say, Argentinian?

In reading about the expansion of the United States to the west and the conflicts with various bands of natives, it seems like there were always members of one group or another who was willing and even eager to lend a few scouts to the US Army. The Army valued the scouts because it gave them an edge in tracking this or that group, and the lending band could potentially see a rival weakened.

I'm wondering if there were ever serious attempts to unite the Natives of the Plains in the same sense as, for example, the Iroquois Confederacy, which while not able to fully stave off European settlement expansion seems to have gotten on with them better, and doesn't seem to have been targeted for extermination in the same way as, say, the Sioux or the Apache. The US Army might still have been had an edge, but might have been forced to sign and actually follow more peace treaties.

I am interested in understanding the origin of writing and its impact on culture.

Assumedly, early peoples developed speech that led to oral traditions and knowledge passed through stories and litanies. I believe it is assumed that some stories may trace their origins to preliterate cultures due to common themes.

Then writing began and with it an accumulation of knowledge with greater endurance.

It is curious to me that much early writing, specifically cuneiform records, are transactions rather than culture. But at times there came to be historic texts that became holy, proscribing behaviors, the nature of gods and men, the nature of the universe and its origin, in essence defining culture itself.

While we cannot know for certain, it seems to me that preliterate cultures must have been more free to change and that the origin of writing may actually have stunted cultural advancement at the same time it caused the explosion of knowledge.

What are the current theories regarding the impact of writing on the creation of doctrine and its impact on the fluidity of culture? Did writing allow us to accumulate knowledge and slow the change of human behavior? What are the greatest facilitators of cultural change in the last several hundred years that allow peoples to change their behaviors in spite of sacred texts and tradition? Have systems of law become the new tools of codifying behavior and of allowing that gradual change?

Namely, the use of the ideas of Matthiessen's American Renaissance subjects (Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Hawthorne, and Melville) in anti-communist literature by authors such as Schlesinger, Trilling, Howe, and Buckley (and to a lesser extent, fringe groups such as the John Birch Society.)

My reason for posting is that I am consistently hitting places where the nuance of these ideas are consistently contradicted by the authors themselves. Schlesinger, for example in The Age of Jackson, held that the Trancendentalists "from their book-lined studies, or their shady walks in cool Concord woods…found the hullabaloo of party politics unedifying and vulgar," and perhaps sought to make their "flinching from politics…into a virtue,” “leaving responsibility far behind for a magic domain where the mystic sentiment and gnomic utterance exorcised the rude intrusions of the world." However, in The Vital Center, perhaps my main Schlesinger source, the ideas he borrows from Emerson et al. go directly against this opinion.

Has anyone else run into these sort of issues while writing? I have occasionally in the past, however this is much more frequent and frustrating. Additionally, I am always open to suggestion for source materials to assist in the expansion of my idea.

I suppose not just the glass factor, there is a lot to keeping fish and stuff alive. Did this used to happen?

This question has been asked in here several times when I searched with no answer.

How did it emerge? What are some defining characteristics of a Fascist state, or political party, or movement? How does it differ from other authoritarian governments?

In my World History class, we're currently discussing the industrial revolution and how it affected the lives of people. But since there's so much to cover, the class is relatively vague and the major cities where most of these changes occurred aren't discussed in great detail. I'm mainly curious about when and how rural areas became urban and eventually "modern".

Were they on their own? Would they get together and rebuild? WAS there a plan?

What was the Japanese strategy in the pacific following the loss of so many carriers at Midway? Did they still have offensive plans on the table or did they just sort of go on the defensive when island hopping really got started?