I think the correct answer from the choices listed above is the first place. The important<span> skill that gave Africa's Bantu-speaking people an advantage over the nomadic hunter-gatherers they displaced would be ironworking. Hope this answers the question.</span>
Answer:
Picture but most likely one answer would be Cold War
Explanation:
Answer:
<u>Because even if the Absolutism has similarities and was applied in almost the entire Europe, each country modeled its conceptions to adapt to reality. </u>And this reality could be <u>social, political or religious.</u>
Explanation:
I believe that the better way to understand this point is analyzing the two major countries where the Absolutism was strong: France and England.
- France was ruled by Louis XIV in the 17th century. He describes himself as "The state is me" (“L'Etat c'est Moi”). This monarch is the main definition of the absolutist ruler. <u>To support his government, Louis XIV follows the idea of Divine Right of Kings which argued that the monarch had divine powers and was elected by God. Thus, his actions and laws were divine and couldn't be disrespected. </u>The question is: why this conception worked in France? <u>Because it was a catholic country, and religious perceptions were followed without question. Plus, Louis XIV had no limits in his powers. I mean, there was no law or political scheme that could limit him.</u>
- On the contrary, in England, <u>the king was subjected to the Parlament. </u>However, only this restriction was not sufficed to limit his power. The main point is that the British kings <u>followed the idea of a social contract (popularized by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes). </u>This idea attests that <u>a king has duties with its people,</u> and the Parlament was always remembering him about this. So, he couldn't do whatever he wanted.
The abolitionist movement was against people being dis-empowered and enslaved because of their colour. The feminist movement grew from the same point, particularly in the USA and England, for women realized they had been dis-empowered because of their gender. Neither gender or colour was choice.
<span>Buchanan believed that slavery was wrong while also claiming that states did not have the right of succession. As the North and South adamantly debated whether slavery was illegal and immoral or legal and ethical, Buchanan admitted that there were certain grievenances that would make the succession justified, but then he condemed the act of slavery, saying that it was unconstitutional adn that the Founder Fathers never intended to endow any group of people with the right to enslave another group of people. But in a surprising turn, he said that if the succession was renamed to be called a revolution, then it would be acceptable because then, it would fail to call for the enforcement of a constituional right, and it also seperated the government from the requirement of giving the succession recognition. So in effect, Buchannan hindered the succession by declaring the right to a secession to be null and void, but failed to denouce slavery because he also defended the excuses that the sourtherns were using to threaten the secession in the first place. The postition he took angered both the people of the North and South. In the end, the Battle of Fort Sumter commenced and the South excercised their right to sucession after all.</span>
