Answer:
The politics of the period inevitably drove France towards war with Austria and its allies. The King, many of the Feuillants, and the Girondins specifically wanted to wage war.
- The King was hoping war would increase his personal popularity and make him stronger.
- The Girondins wanted to export the Revolution throughout Europe and, by extension, to defend the Revolution within France.
- Other Monarchs from Prussia, Austria were threatening of invading France on the behalf of the French Monarchy. Moreover, the king was unhappy to sharing power and not wanting to accept the limitation on his power as result he agitating with the foreign monarchs
- People like Barnave and Robespierre in France opposed the war, and in Austria the emperor Leopold II, brother of Marie Antoinette, may have wished to avoid war, but unfortunately he died on 1 March 1792.
Thus France under this circumstance it preemptively declared war on Austria (20 April 1792). Prussia joined the Austrian side a few weeks later. And the wars that will catapult Napoleon into notoriety was on.
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
It says that people have a moral responsibility to break unjust laws, and to take direct action rather than waiting potentially forever for justice to come through the courts
The correct option is C. They had trained and rehearsed for the mission. Originally, the black regiment had prepared for the offensive and was going to lead the charge against the Confederate Army, however one day before the battle they were ordered not to do that and were replaced by white troops. This result in a defeat of the Union Army.
Pio de Jesus<span> was the last governor of Mexican California.</span>
