Frederick Douglass hoped in the future there would be
equality for all races. To achieve this dream, Douglass believed that education
was the key to attaining equality and bright future for Black Americans. Though Andrew Jackson was a slave holder, he
too had hopes for the future of the United States. This was through expansion. Jackson believed that it was America’s
destiny to rule over the entire continent.
This was later carried out by President Polk who promoted westward
expansion.
Answer:
The colonial responses to British policies after the French and Indian War can be classified as violent or nonviolent. Hence, we have
Non Violent responses to be the following
Committees of Correspondence: this was formed in 1764, and it was a means of a series of dialogue among patriot leaders throughout the American colonies. The purpose is to unite the colonies in opposition to the British Parliament. It is nonviolent in nature.
Non-Importation Movement: this was formed after the Sugar Act of 1764 and the Stamp Act of 1765. And it is a form of protest by the American colonists for the purpose of boycotting the British goods in an effort to change imperial policy. It involves the abstinence of the American colonists from purchasing or consuming imported tea and other goods. It is nonviolent in nature
Stamp Act Congress: which was conducted in 1765, was the first meeting of the representatives from various American colonies to conduct a unified protest against British taxation, including the petition of the king and Parliament for change the objectionable measures. It is nonviolent in nature
While the violent response is the
Boston Massacre: this occurred in the year 1770. And it was a street fight or open and physical confrontation involving the British soldiers shooting killing several people while being harassed by the American colonists' mob who chose to throw harmful objects like snowballs, stones, and sticks, towards the British soldiers in Boston.
Explanation:
It's irony because Fortunato's name means fortunate and he ends up in an unfortunate situation.
The correct answer is " Citizens would be able to form governments that ensure their interests."
The idea of a social contract involves citizens of a country giving up some of their individual liberties (aka freedoms) so that the government can make society safer. Hobbes argued that this social contract, despite the fact that it limits individual freedoms, will benefit citizens because they have the opportunity to pick their leaders who will make laws based around their wants/needs.
