Democratic republican try it both ways because Jefferson was torry/wig
Genghis Khan was a leader with lot of great qualities, and he is regarded as a great leader, one of the greatest in history in fact.
Explanation:
Genghis Khan was a Mongol ruler of the Mongol Empire. He managed to unite the Mongol tribes and make them the greatest power of their time. Genghis Khan also set the foundations for the formation of the largest empire that the world has seen until then, only to be surpassed in size by the British Empire few centuries later.
This Mongol ruler possessed many great qualities. He was very wise, excellent tactician, loved his people, was establishing peace on the conquered territories, encouraged people of ethnic and religious backgrounds to collaborate and coexist. It is very interesting that Genghis Khan can be seen bot as a nationalist and as a liberal, from modern perspective of course.
His nationalist tendencies are seen in the fact that he loved his country, he loved his people, and he made sure that every Mongol has all of the basic needs for life secured. On the other side, his liberalism can be seen in the fact that he had nothing against people of other ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, but instead he was encouraging all people to put their differences aside, collaborate, and help each other for the benefit of everyone. All in all, Genghis Khan was an excellent leader, and a model as to how many other leaders should have been in that period of time.
Learn more about the Mongol Empire brainly.com/question/11288396
#learnwithBrainly
Answer:
Because the United States is a global superpower and has the worlds largest military, Canada is also the United States' biggest trade partner and ally. Many laws and rules in the United States end up being the foundation for Canadian laws and rules. Our economies are closely tied together and when one succeeds, generally so does the other and vice-versa
Answer: the representation of states in Congress.
<em>The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise both focused on </em><em>the representation of states in Congress.</em>
Both of these compromises were devised during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787. The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
