1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Mashcka [7]
3 years ago
14

How is rationalism different from puritanism

History
1 answer:
Vika [28.1K]3 years ago
4 0

Answer:

Rationalism vs Puritanism Rationalism. A form of religion where instead of believing in a higher been, Science and reasoning are what is lived by. ... While the Puritans believed that everyone had a pre-destined faith, Rationalists believed in no such thing.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
at the end of the 1800s, why did people fear china might be split into different imperialist colonies
lutik1710 [3]
China was to weak to defend
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Hiram Rhodes Revels, Blanche K. Bruce, and Jonathan Clarkson Gibbs were
SIZIF [17.4K]

Hiram, Blanche, and Jonathan were all the officials belonging to African American community in the era of Reconstruction.

<h3>What is meant by slavery?</h3>

Slavery is the practice followed by the white people to treat black people as their slaves.

Hiram and Blanche were previously treated as slaves and then becoming the senators in the state of Mississippi. Jonathan was the secretary in the state of Florida who came to help in the reconstruction of the US country.

Therefore, none of the options is accurate as the option A and option B are totally incorrect and rest of the two are partially correct.

Learn more about the slavery in the related link:

brainly.com/question/9331183

#SPJ1

8 0
1 year ago
How do colonists view the right of representation?
marishachu [46]
No taxation without representation.
5 0
3 years ago
in opposition to the declaration of war against Mexico, what did first term u.s congressman Abraham Lincoln demand to be shown?
Vilka [71]
<span>Elected as a Whig to Congress in 1846, Abraham Lincoln gained notoriety when he lashed out against the Mexican War, calling it immoral, proslavery, and a threat to the nation's republican values. President James K. Polk had called for war, accusing Mexico of shedding of "American blood on American soil.” Lincoln responded by introducing a series of resolutions demanding to know the "particular spot of soil on which the blood of our citizens was so shed." One of Lincoln's constituents branded him "the Benedict Arnold of our district," and he was denied renomination by his own party.
Document: Whereas the President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused to receive him, [the envoy of the United States,] or listen to his propositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at last invaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our own soil:" And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause of war against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities; but even then we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herself became the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and shedding the blood of our citizens:" And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, that "the Mexican Government refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [our minister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading the territory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding the blood of our citizens on our own soil." And whereas this House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil: Therefore, Resolved By the House of Representatives, That the President of the United States be respectfully requested to inform this House --1st. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his messages declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, at least after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution.2d. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which was wrested from Spain by the revolutionary Government of Mexico.3d. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army.4th. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and all other settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east.5th. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or laws of Texas or the United States, by consent or compulsion, either by accepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving on juries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way.6th. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from the approach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes and their growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the messages stated; and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within the enclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it.7th. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his message declared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, through the Secretary of War.8th. Whether the military force of the United States was or was not sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than once intimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement was necessary to the defence or protection of Texas.Source: Abraham Lincoln, “Spot Resolutions,” December 22, 1847Copyright 2016 Digital History         

this is the site i got it from does this help you or no?



</span>
4 0
3 years ago
The advent of the steam-transportation, machine-industralization and the telegraph( and eventually the phone) were all part of t
Sever21 [200]

Based on the information given, it should be noted that this period was known as the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution was simply the transition to the manufacturing sector from the agrarian economy in the country. This period was dominated by industries.

The Industrial Revolution brought about the advent of the steam-transportation, machine-industralization and the telegraph and eventually the phone.

Learn more about Industrial Revolution on:

brainly.com/question/1967353

7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why can immigration put America at a disadvantage work wise?
    9·1 answer
  • Why is brainly not working
    9·1 answer
  • (MC)The Open Door Policy resulted from which of these factors?
    13·1 answer
  • In the last sentence from the first paragraph of the passage, what does brevity mean?
    13·1 answer
  • Why do you think he titles this print, “The Bloody Massacre Perpetrated on King Street"? How might
    11·1 answer
  • What are 6 questions you should consider when questioning a source?
    5·1 answer
  • How did Chi Minh attempted to work with the United States to solve the problems of Vietnam?
    6·2 answers
  • The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was the agreement in which Mexico agreed to surrender most lands west of Texas.
    10·2 answers
  • Why was the French Revolutions idea of everyone having rights and being equal, a dangerous idea?
    12·2 answers
  • How has the relationship between oil reserves, production, and consumption influenced United States foreign policy?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!