People often obey a gevernment out of habit. Obviously habit is not something a new government has on it's side.
People hate a government which hurts them. Because people had time to adapt to old laws (murder illegal? work as potato farmer rather than assasin!) they are more hurt by old governments than new ones.
Whenever a country is 'liberated' either by external or internal forces, the liberators make all kinds of promises to all kinds of people. Some of these promises at least will be broken, causing members of the new ruling class to turn against eachother.
And often new governments lose the services of the most experienced police and propaganda men who worked for the old regime and our thus less able to defend themselves than established ones.
Answer:
Athenians
Explanation:
he battle also showed the Greeks that they were able to win battles without the Spartans, as Sparta was seen as the major military force in Greece. This victory was largely due to the Athenians, and Marathon raised Greek esteem of them.
By protecting intellectual property, we made a specific invention could only be produced by the inventors alone.
Which means that the companies in other countries do not possess the right to produce it. This will increase the GDP of the country where the inventors came from
hope this helps
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
It is know as a channel divides
