Answer:
California, the Louisiana Purchase, The Texas Independence and The Coining of 'Manifest Destiny'
Explanation:
They were all apart of it
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
B) imports
The Townsend acts taxed imports, such as tea, they wanted to receive revenue from colonists.
Answer:
It can be viewed in opposite opinions, so I'll do both, and you can choose which one you use- you could use both, which would detail your answer more, and ensure you get top marks.
Explanation:
On one hand, I disagree that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany. After majorly contributing to the start of World War I, causing mass destruction to numerous countries, they deserved a severe punishment to face their consequences, which included reparations, loss of their territory, and regulations on the size of their army. It was right for them to be punished so harshly, so they could learn not to cross the Allies again.
On the other hand, I agree that the Treaty of Versailles was unfair on Germany. Despite contributing to a war, every country was involved, so it is not right Germany are the ones getting severely punished. The punishments are too harsh and majorly damaged the country's economy, and I feel this is too hard on Germany.
Hope this helps!
