Answer:
a) In source one, the political revolution in American and French revolutions led to barring of old traditions of royal charisma and made ploitical authorities accountable. On the other hand, source 2 says that Fench revolution and revolution in America have thought to mark emergence of citizenship but in theiri times their lessons were inconclusive. The lessons and change were realized gradually.
b) American and French revolutions removed the weight of tradition and troyal charisma and held political authorities accountable to a community of citizens
c) Within empires spaces outside Europe it was unclear whether the idea of individual rights was a necessary revolution or restricted to a certain area of the world.
Explanation:
a) Refer to following lines from source 1: " the American and French revolutionaries expanded the whole horizon of the age, opening a path of linear progress, grounding social relations for the first time on the principle of formal equality, lifting the weight of tradition and royal charisma, and instituting a system of rules that made those in political authority accountable to a community of citizens"
Refer to following lines from source 2: " The French revolution and those in North and South America have been transformed into founding myths in their respective countries and are thought to mark the emergence of citizenship, of national economies, of the very idea of the nation. But in their own time, the revolutions’ lessons were inconclusive
b) Refer to the following: "lifting the weight of tradition and royal charisma, and instituting a system of rules that made those in political authority accountable to a community of citizens"
c) Refer to the following: "and within empires’ spaces overseas it was unclear whether the idea of [individual rights] would be a contagious proposition or one [restricted to] a select few. ."
Answer:
The main difference is that under communism, most property and economic resources are owned and controlled by the state (rather than individual citizens); under socialism, all citizens share equally in economic resources as allocated by a democratically-elected government.
Explanation:
I'm pretty sure it's Bernardo de Gálvez
Answer:
So the UN managed to assemble a combined military force of many different nations to hold back the North Korean army. This was possible because of the activity in the council by its member states, and because of the change of rhetoric since the beginning of the 20th century.
The League of Nations was formed as a predecessor to the UN and partly NATO, but it was wildly ineffective. None of the member states were willing to commit military forces to the council to enforce peace and it was all mostly influenced by the isolationism of the US and the appeasement and neutrality policy of the Allies. So basically the UN is a revamped version of the League of Nations because it is more effective and it is forcing member states to participate while the League of Nations did not manage to do that. And it is important to note that the North Korean crisis was stopped because of the military intervention of the UN. While the League of Nations would have done basically nothing if they still existed at that point.
Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, and North Carolina
