Lincoln hoped to use a well-known figure of speech to help rouse the people to recognition of the magnitude of the ongoing debates over the legality of slavery. His use of this paraphrased metaphor is perhaps clearer when you look at some more of his speech:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.
As you can see, in this metaphor, the "house" refers to the Union — to the United States of America — and that house was divided between the opponents and advocates of slavery. Lincoln felt that the ideals of freedom for all and the institution of slavery could not coexist — morally, socially, or legally — under one nation. Slavery must ultimately be universally accepted or universally denied.
Answer: I just put all of them in order
Xia Dynasty
Shang Dynasty
Zhou Dynasty
Qin Dynasty
Han Dynasty
Six Dynasties Period. ...
Sui Dynasty
Tang Dynasty
Five Dynasties Period, Ten Kingdoms
Song Dynasty
Yuan Dynasty
Ming Dynasty
Qing Dynasty
Explanation:
I'm just good that way :)
It failed because China is a land of the proletariat and the ruling party is a communist one while the fifth modernization was about introducing democracy. Since the party represents the working class and the will of the people in theory, democracy is against it since it would enable those who are against the party to also compete which would in theory mean that they are against the people.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution <span> authorized the president to take "all necessary measures to repel armed attack" in Vietnam.
This resolution had significant consequences for the Vietnam War and beyond that time. In regard to the Vietnam War, it provided the justification for the president, Lyndon Johnson, to escalate US involvement in the war and magnify the number of US troops there by hundreds of thousands. In US foreign policy in general, it represented an increase of the power of the Commander in Chief (the president) to deploy troops without getting formal approval in advance from Congress.
</span>
I would say C because the king did repeatedly abuse our rights. Like the intolerable acts for instance shut down the port of massachusetts and hurt trade. Also the quartering act the sugar act the stamp act and a few more that evntually led us to civil war with him. We peacefully sent the king a olive tree branch petition which was supposed to be a sign of peace. But he rejected it and called us in full rebellion. So we fought for ourselves and won the civil war and made friends with britain as our main trade partner.
