Answer:
<u>Because even if the Absolutism has similarities and was applied in almost the entire Europe, each country modeled its conceptions to adapt to reality. </u>And this reality could be <u>social, political or religious.</u>
Explanation:
I believe that the better way to understand this point is analyzing the two major countries where the Absolutism was strong: France and England.
- France was ruled by Louis XIV in the 17th century. He describes himself as "The state is me" (“L'Etat c'est Moi”). This monarch is the main definition of the absolutist ruler. <u>To support his government, Louis XIV follows the idea of Divine Right of Kings which argued that the monarch had divine powers and was elected by God. Thus, his actions and laws were divine and couldn't be disrespected. </u>The question is: why this conception worked in France? <u>Because it was a catholic country, and religious perceptions were followed without question. Plus, Louis XIV had no limits in his powers. I mean, there was no law or political scheme that could limit him.</u>
- On the contrary, in England, <u>the king was subjected to the Parlament. </u>However, only this restriction was not sufficed to limit his power. The main point is that the British kings <u>followed the idea of a social contract (popularized by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes). </u>This idea attests that <u>a king has duties with its people,</u> and the Parlament was always remembering him about this. So, he couldn't do whatever he wanted.
Answer:
africa was a very poor country at the time
Explanation:
Nationalism heightened in the 19th century and heading into the 20th century. The nationalistic fervor by people in Europe had them each viewing their own nations as better than the others, in competition with the others. This would lead to an increase in tension between the nations.
Imperialism expanded on that nationalistic rivalry by carrying their competition to other parts of the globe. The nations of Europe sought to grab control for themselves over parts of Asia and Africa. When war erupted, that also meant it would become a world war because the European nations would include people from their imperial territories in the war.
Militarism grew ever more potent as the 20th century opened. The competition between nations included a massive arms race in terms of expanding armies and navies. The nations also sided up in competing military alliances and made military battle plans as to how they might fight a war if war came. When a cause for war broke out, all those preparations propelled the nations of Europe into war recklessly.
Andes mountains is one of the features
Here's the thing: President Lincoln had absolutely no way to actually enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a mere gesture.
Now, he had his reasons for making such a gesture.
For one, Lincoln hoped that, when the slaves heard that they had been granted their freedom, the sudden wave of freedmen, as they would come to be called, would help disrupt the war effort.
Perhaps some of these freedmen would join the Union army. That was another small reason.
As for why he didn't extend the Proclamation to the entire country...well, the thing was, he planned to.
Lincoln's greatest ambition was to free the slaves. But even in the North, there existed strong racism. Plus, some Northerners had slaves too, and Lincoln needed the North's support, not only to win the war, but also to support the Thirteenth Amendment he planned to propose after the war ended. This Thirteenth Amendment would make outlaw slavery in the United States forever.
