The answer is: A.) He was more lenient and was guided by Confucian ideals.
- Unlike the government methods used by Qin, which included harsh punishment for those who disagreed with him to the extent to which an individual could be put to death simply by suggesting another way to do things, the methods used by Liu Bang included the <u>abolition of the harsh law of the Qin Dynasty</u> and establishing a new one that was supported by the people. Liu took a series of measures that were <u>good for his people</u> as well, such as the reduction of field taxes levied on the peasants.
- Another difference is that, while Qin was a legalist (basically someone who believes that people are bad so it is necessary to control every minute of their lives), Liu Bang promoted Confucianism as the dominant political ideology, in which it is believed that a good government should rule by virtue and moral example rather than by punishment or force.
Regarding the other options:
- Option B.) He banned books and executed scholars who protested: Qin, and not Liu Bang, banned Confucianism along with all other schools that were against his own ideals. Freedom of speech was banned, and Quin ordered the burning of the books that critized him along with people that did so.
- C.) He divided up the power among several states: Qin, and once again not Bang, divided his empire into 36 provinces. Each had two government officials in charge of it. He implemented this measure so that he could control every citizen.
- D.) He banned all trade with cultures outside of China: China's natural barriers in the east, south, and west, protected her from invasion. But Qin wanted to reinforce China's protection from the Mongol tribe to the north. Therefore, Qin ordered his people to build The Great Wall, so the people couldn't trade with foreign cultures either.
The open door policy is where every country has equal trade in china
Answer:
Bracero
Explanation:
Bracero (manual labor) program.
Answer:constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine. the Supreme Court ruled that a law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between whites and blacks was not unconstitutional.
Explanation:
