Ha baths basics Isabel isaak urban never have sis Han Han Isais
Answer:
C. a unitary system
Explanation:
A country that is run on a Unitary system is fully controlled by one single entity that has supreme authority in terms of creating legislations. In most cases, this single entity is referred to as the central government. They do not let their local districts have their own autonomy. Every single decisions and legislations that made by the Central government must be followed by all citizens in that country.
Typically, Unitary system could only work in a country with small area and typically low population. It would be really inefficient in large countries like United States or India. Example of successful countries that use Unitary System are: France, Finland, and Singapore.
The German economy started to clasp under the heaviness of these outside and inward pressing factors. As the principal reimbursements were made to the Allies in the mid 1920s, the estimation of the German imprint sank radically, and a time of excessive inflation started. In mid 1922, 160 German imprints was identical to one US dollar. By November of 1923, the money would devalue to 4,200,000,000,000 imprints to one US dollar.
Answer: Choice C.
They worried that Lincoln would try to end slavery in the United States.
==========================================================
Explanation:
The issue of slavery was debated and fought over for many years before the election of 1860. It was only until Lincoln became president that sparked the southern states to secede, which led to the Civil War. Proof of this is found in the many Declaration of Secession documents produced by each state that left the union. This is basically a document explaining why they left the United States to form the Confederate States of America (CSA) aka the Confederacy.
In modern times, some people mistakenly claim that the Civil War wasn't over slavery but rather states' rights. This is simply false. The documents I mentioned prove that slavery was the core issue. More proof is the various states having issues with the fugitive slave act, in that the northern states didn't really adhere to the law to the level of the southern states' liking. I guess you could argue that states' rights were involved, but specifically the south fought to have the right to own slaves. In short, it's all about getting the correct context. Expanding that context, simply look at the decades preceding the war and notice all of the tension involving whether a new state was a free state vs a slave state.
