Answer:
It means that the old times weren't as good as the phrase 'the good old times' made it seem.
explanation:
What Andrew Carnegie meant by this is that although we may use the phrase
“The ‘good old times’, those times were not really good times. This is because things were not clearly as good as it is today compared to those times. Going back to those times or old conditions would be disastrous as the good old times were not quite as civilized as we have it today.
From the speech from which he said these words, he said neither master nor servant were as well situated as they are today. This means that life wasn't very easy or comfortable in the old times compared to today.
Polar, temperate, and tropical zones
(:
Answer:
In the nineteenth century, the doctrine of Manifest Destiny was a common belief among the inhabitants of the United States that American colonizers should expand in North America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It expressed the belief that the American people were elected by God to civilize their continent.
The Manifest Destiny was not a thesis embraced by all American society. The differences within the country itself about the objective and consequences of the policy of expansion determined its acceptance or resistance.
The northeastern states believed for the most part that the United States should take its concept of "civilization" throughout the continent through territorial expansion. In addition, for US commercial interests, the expansion offered large and lucrative access to foreign markets and thus allowed to compete in better conditions with the British. Having ports in the Pacific would facilitate trade with Asia.
The southern states sought to extend slavery. New slave states would strengthen the power of the south in Washington and would also serve to place the growing slave population.
This north-south conflict became clear with the question of Texas's entry into the Union and was one of the main causes of the future Civil War.
There were also political groups that saw the excessive territorial extension as dangerous; they believed that their political system and the formation of a nation would be difficult to apply in such a vast territory. This position was defended as much by some leaders of the Whigs as by some expansionist Republican-Democrats, who argued about how much territory should be acquired.
Another point of discussion was the use of force. Some political leaders (whose maximum exponent was James K. Polk) did not hesitate to try to annex the largest possible territory even at the risk of triggering wars (as in fact happened) with other nations. Others opposed (albeit timidly) the use of force, on the grounds that the benefits of their system alone would suffice for the territories to join voluntarily.
It can be said that the own supporters of the "Manifest Destiny" formed a heterogeneous group with different interests.
While many Americans know that they have a right to free speech, the lay opinion often views the degree of protection afforded by the United State Constitution as much broader than it is in reality. The First Amendment does not protect all types of speech.
The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” While it states “Congress,” the protections are also against state government and local public officials from making any law that abridges a person’s freedom of speech. However, simply because the government cannot make a law of this nature does not mean that individuals are free to say anything that they want to. For example, employers may prohibit certain types of speech that would not violate a person’s First Amendment rights if the employer was not a public employer.
So I believe the answers would either be B or C (:
Thanks me and mark as brainliest (:
