Answer:
It put an end to the French monarchy, feudalism, and took political power from the Catholic church
Explanation:
He thought it was a reduction of personal liberty.
John L. Sullivan was a boxing legend. Even having drinking problems his entire life, he took a step ahead on stopping this practice. He decided to not dring anymore as long as he lived, but he had no hard feelings against a man who does. In his view If a man can take a drink and get away with it, so much the better, but yours truly has found long since that whiskey is not for him. He was against prohibition though. He thought it was a reduction of personal liberty.
Answer:
Hiram, King of Tyre.
Explanation:
After King David got back the Ark of the Tabernacle, he promised God that he would build a temple for the Ark to be kept in a much more permanent location. But due to his murderous hands and the vast amount of human blood that he had shed, God told him to let the temple be built by his son Solomon.
In the book of 1 Kings chapter 5, we see Hiram, king of Tyre, and King Solomon agreeing to provide provisions for each other according to their needs. King Solomon requires "cedars of Lebanon" and asks Hiram to allow it to be sent to him, and in return, he will provide King Hiram with provisions for the royal household. <u>Verses 10 and 11</u> say, <em>"In this way Hiram kept Solomon supplied with all the cedar and juniper logs he wanted, and Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand cors of wheat as food for his household, in addition to twenty thousand baths, of pressed olive oil. Solomon continued to do this for Hiram year after year."
</em>
Answer:
Depending on who you would choose, the answer is:
Louis Napoleon<u><em> just stuck with his writing and abandoned the people by just giving himself all the power in the new government and removing the existing parliamentary assembly. </em></u>And Otto Von Bismarck's Realpolitik result <em><u>was the Kulturkampf. </u></em>
Explanation:
It's clear that both politicians appeal to the people to achieve their goals, but Louis Napoleon and Otto Von Bismarck acted differently. <u><em>The French politician only proposed the reformation but never put in action (it was something that was only on the paper). In the end, Louis Napoleon decided to renew the Assembly. He opted for the easiest way. </em></u>On the other hand, <u><em>Bismarck was greed and violent when it comes to politics. His Realpolitik resulted in an internal war between the government and the Catholic Church, which became known as the Kulturkampf.</em></u>
Answer:
He believed that his popularity as liberator would make it easier to impress his ideas upon the peoples and obtain their support of his grand scheme. Unfortunately for Bolivar, there were to be many disheartening realities that he could no longer avoid, which would result in the failure of his dreams.
hope this helps
