<span>"The world would be better off if political boundaries didn't exist" is an indefensible claim. The others can be proven or at least debated over because at some point in time all of them have true and false. For instance, the majority of congress and the President have been from the same political party. Also, the majority of congress and the President have NOT been from the same political party. Therefore, you can compare the difference between true and false. Political boundaries have always existed. As a result, you cannot comfortably compare it to anything else.</span>
One cause was the sheer size of the Mongol empire, due to its size the generals and grandsons of Genghis Khan (the most known Mongol warlord of all time) could not hold it together.
Another cause was that an empire of this size needed more and more administration which was not being done to the level it needed to be, and this eventually led to the decline as well.
"<span>Women in America had fewer rights than French women after the revolution" might be a plausible argument, but it should be noted that the French Revolution amounted in far more internal deaths than the American Revolution, making it hard to argue that it was more liberating.</span>
The U.S. Supreme Court Explanation:
The U.S. Supreme Court is most powerful
Answer:
I think It's Tobacco,no?
and natural resources
Explanation:
I remember reading about it in my history class but I wasn't exactly paying attention
