In general, "<span>Democratic-Republicans supported France, while Federalists feared events in France." Republicans such as Jefferson saw no issue with the violence, while Federalists like Hamilton feared it. </span>
Answer:
Since the 13th amendment banned slavery, plantation owners in the south would have been outraged since they lost all of their minimal cost labor force.
Answer:
President Truman removed General Douglas MacArthur, for MacArthur treated the Korean War as another World War, in which he had to destroy his opposition no matter the cost (it being the communist regime, and the weapon being nuclear weapons). Truman, on the other hand, knew of the delicate usage of the nuclear weapons, and if they are used, the USSR will counter. This led to Truman removing MacArthur for rash behavior.
~
Answer:
Jamestown was founded, Quebec was founded, and the Seven Years’ War was fought.
Explanation:
Hope this helps
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
