The struggle to trade and control food
Answer:
Option A
Explanation:
The First inaugural address was delivered on Monday, March 4, 1861, as part of his taking of the oath of office for his first term as the President of the United States in which he was asking for the preservation of the Union during a perilous time, he called for compromise from both his supporter in the NORTH and without further alienating the South but making his point known (“<em>In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war</em>)He likewise declared secession to be wrong ;promised not to interfere with the institution of slavery where it existed.
However,Abraham Lincoln has a dispassionate for slavery,rejecting the South's defense of slavery; this stand eventually lead to the outbreak of the American Civil War.
At the time of Lincoln’s second inaugural address, the civil war is also most coming to an end and the Union’s victory over the South was imminent. Because of this the second speech was based on resolution,also reaffirming a faith in God's will and healing a once-divided nation
This is how I would go: (I'm just glossing over it, sorry if you think it lacks detail. :L)
<span>1. California does not deserve a seat in the United Nations. </span>
<span>2. The UN is only for nations; people in California are US citizens; they do not have a culture nor a culture that is exclusive to the rest of the US. In this sense, California is not a nation. (this is the definition of a nation bit.) </span>
<span>3. Federalism, the system where states and national governments share power. California (states in general) does not have the power to enter into treaties with foreign countries, nor regulate commerce with foreign countries. These powers are exclusive to the national government. This would mean that it cannot be given a seat, where these powers would be put into California's hands. I guess states governments would also fit into here somewhere. </span>
"<span>D.)California begins to coin and print currency for use within the state" would be against the Constitution, since the Constitution states that only the federal government can regulate currency. </span>