Answer: Unalienable rights
An added note of explanation:
You'll see both "unalienable" and "inalienable" used in description of these sorts of rights that cannot be taken away because they are not granted by man but are ever human being's natural possession. In the final version of the <em>Declaration of Independence, </em>the spelling <em>unalienable </em>was used. That was the copy of the document as transcribed by John Adams, which was used for printed copies to be made. Thomas Jefferson's original draft used the spelling <em>inalienable</em>. The two variations of the word were both in use at the time in the 18th century. Either way, the word means something that cannot be made alien to you -- in other words, something that is naturally your possession and cannot be taken away from you.
Sectionalism became very tensed in the late 1940s because of the separation of the North and the South because of the slavery. People in the North were focusing on industrializing, urbanizing, and building factories while the people from the South concentrated in agriculture. The Southerners was claiming that the North's factories weren't treating everyone fairly and lead into a war.
German declaration of Submarine Warfare
Zimmerman Telegrams
In the Declaration of Independence, one opposing claim Jefferson anticipates is that prudence would "dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". Indeed, he says, and experience demonstrates that mankind would take all of the suffers, as long they are bearable, before changing the Government to which they are used to. But when a long trail of abuses and usurpations makes that Government despotic and not the system that guarantees the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the duty of men to take down that government and establish a new one that guarantees those rights. And so he lists the abuses that the King's ruling has inflicted upon the colonies, such as imposing taxes, cutting off their trade, dissolving Representatives Houses when it didn't follow his wishes, and not re-establishing them after a long time, etc.
Jefferson is trying to demonstrate why it is fair and justifiable that the colonies break free from the English ruling after it didn't stop with its tyrannical actions towards them, when the colonists has petitioned it in the most humble way. If the civilized and lawful approaches weren't enough to reform the regime, then it is fair to take it down and build a new one.
Answer:
they really didnt ike them because they were trying to take hem down and theys also tryed to start a war with other people
Explanation:
