Third parties struggle to be heard. Third parties often are required to get thousands of signatures on a petition to simply get on a ballot. On the state and federal level, the government sets various election rules and standards. This control allows them to keep the 2 main parties (Democrat and Republican) in power and keep third parties out. Third parties have hurt them in the past and lost them major elections. Both parties have lost presidential elections in the past. Third parties face the great financial hardships of trying to match or beat the financial means of the 2 parties. Trying to raise the money to be heard on a national stage is near impossible when competing against these older more established parties. Often times, for any type of financial help the third party must meet a certain percentage of the vote to qualify, which they almost never do. Third parties also have to fight with the ideological differences that separate them from the other larger parties. How can they stand out apart from this larger group? They are often either too extreme or not extreme enough to separate themselves. Many times the third parties are often absorbed and lost in the 2 larger parties.
The plantation system developed for several reasons. The Southern colonies had been founded by companies or proprietors who wished to make a profit, and they accordingly encouraged cash crops like tobacco (in the Chesapeake) and rice (in the Low Country). These crops were labor intensive, which meant that growers turned first to indentured servants and then to African slaves as a labor supply (so, too, did sugar planters in the Caribbean.) They also required a great deal of land and capital, which meant that due to an economic principle called "economies of scale," cash crops, especially rice, favored very wealthy people with large landholdings and access to large labor forces. So in the Southern colonies/United States, the economic realities of staple crop production favored the formation of large farms, or plantations. Cotton, which emerged as the biggest cash crop in the nineteenth-century South, was less shaped by economies of scale--many small planters and farmers could profitably raise the crop. But even still, the largest cotton planters in places like Alabama and Mississippi dominated the Southern economy and increasingly its politics. Large capital investments in land and enslaved people made the production of large amounts of cotton profitable, so the region's dependence on cash crops continued to foster the plantation system.
Answer:
In his August 1963 speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial delivered to 250,000 black and white Americans, Martin Luther King, Jr., declared: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".
"I Have a Dream" is the popular term for the speech given by Martin Luther King in 1963 in Washington D.C.
In this speech, King laid out his dreams and visions of a future in the United States where everyone, regardless of race, would be able to live together in harmony as equal citizens. It was held in front of more than 200,000 people, and is considered to be one of the most significant speeches ever.
President Clinton was clearly in the support of globalisation. He signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which decreased the barriers in the trades between America, Mexico and Canada, in 1994. He built strong alliances with Aisa and Europe also.
The absolutist monarchs claimed divine right to rule because, by basing their power on a divine mandate, the people could not contradict them or face them, since as being a divine disposition it was something unquestionable.
The divine right of kings meant that the authority of a king to rule came from the will of the deity of the people he governs, and not from any temporal authority, not even from the will of his subjects or from any testament. Chosen by his deity, a monarch was only responsible before him, and he had only to answer for his actions before God. The doctrine implied that the deposition of the king or the restriction of power and prerogatives of the crown were acts contrary to the will of God.
