8 in 1788, that is the answer
Answer:
<h3>I'm a Roman Catholic , from Philippines</h3>
Explanation:
<h3>#BrainliestBunch</h3>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although the question does not have any further references or attachments, we can say that the sectional conflict was a combination of an irrepressible conflict with the work of bungling politicians, fanatics, and agitators.
Before the Civil War, there were many incidents, events, and decisions that create more separation in the views of the northerners and southerners. In the North, the idea of abolitionism was supported by most states, while in the South, slavery was an important part of the economy. Indeed, southern states depended on slaves to produce the crops in large plantations. These crops had to be exported to Europe.
The Missouri Compromise or the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the product of different points of view from legislators trying to fix things until the problems too many that made seven states seceded from the Union, and later, the beginning of the Civil War.
The answer is option 4: <u>He believed in the absolute power of kings.</u>
The England King James I (who ruled from 1603 to1625) clashed with the Parliament's ideas several times for his persistent belief in the absolute power of kings, justified for their divine right, which enabled him to rule over all their subjects without interference from anyone. Instead, the Parliament believed that the King must not rule alone, doing all that he pleased.
They both had very different views on how royal finances had to be handled as well as foreign affairs, for example, the Parliament members held that tax collection was an issue that had to be approved by them in order to improve the crown's finances, which had been seriously weakened by the long war with Spain (1585-1604), as for James I, he wanted to collect the taxes on his own, whose purpose wasn't only to improve the government but also to over-spend on his luxury way of living.
