Answer:
The major downfall of the Articles of Confederation was simply weakness. The federal government, under the Articles, was too weak to enforce their laws and therefore had no power. The Continental Congress had borrowed money to fight the Revolutionary War and could not repay their debts.
The Articles of Confederation had several weaknesses. Three notable weaknesses include the national government's lack of power to tax, the absence of national army or navy and the ability of each state to issue their own paper money.
<span>This change happened gradually. Quakers were some of the first people in the Americas to own slaves. However, objections were brought up by Dutch Quakers in the 18th century that changed the Christian sect's outlook on owning slaves.
From these objections, Quakers gradually stopped owning slaves and became some of the most vocal abolitionists. The Quaker biblical justification was in the verse Matthew 7:12 which stated that Christians had a responsibility to adhere to a higher standard of living morally. The Quakers did not believe owning slaves was a part of living up to these standards.</span>
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
Most women and <span>children lacked the opportunities available to adult men.</span>
The answer is islam
hope this helped (:
