Answer from Google: The Radical Republicans were a faction of the Republican Party during the American Civil War. They were distinguished by their fierce advocacy for the abolition of slavery, enfranchisement of black citizens, and holding the Southern states financially and morally culpable for the war.
Answer from Socratic:
The Radical Republicans thought Lincoln didn't take a hard enough line against slavery.
Thaddeus Stevens was always on the political fringes. He began his political career as part of the Anti-Masonic party, continued with the Whig (Anti-Jackson) party, the Know-Nothing (Anti-Catholic and Anti-Immigrant) Party and ultimately, the (Anti-Slavery) Republican Party.
In Congress, representing Pennsylvania, he was a gadfly to Lincoln for dragging his feet on banning slavery; after the war and assassination, he opposed Andrew Johnson for wanting the southern states back in the Union as quickly as possible. Stevens lobbied hard for Johnson's impeachment. He died in 1868, just in time to see the Republicans quietly drop civil rights for Blacks from their platform.
Hope I can help you!
The leap forward was the most similar event
The Confederates established the first mandatory military recruitment in the history of America in April 1862. It was obvious that the South, with a total population of 9 million (including 4 million slaves) needed to use its entire male population to repel the North, which had a population of 22 million in 1860. In the south, men who had 20 slaves were exempted from recruitment, however, the mandatory program aroused the resentment of most of the army because most were poor. With the war, the south was left devastated, with great material destruction and an economic one. The growing precariousness of the Confederates led to about one third of the army deserting.
While the northern economy grew the southern one sank victim of the inflation, of the shortage caused by the war, reason why the population had many disadvantages to feed itself and to continue with its normal life.
<span>Noam Chomsky is one of the most recognized names of our time; his contributions to linguistics and the implications of his theories for studies on the workings of the human mind have rocked the intellectual world for over fifty years, beginning with the critical reception of his first book on Syntactic Structures (1957), his </span><span>review of Skinner’s Verbal Behaviour for Language in 1959, and the range of books he produced in the 1960s, including his assessment of Current Issues in Linguistic Theory</span><span> in 1964,</span><span> Aspects of the Theory of Syntax<span> in 1965, Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar in 1966, Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought, also in 1966, Language and Mind in 1968, and (with Morris Halle) The Sound Pattern of English (1968). Since then, the flow of linguistic work has been profuse, as Chomsky overturned</span></span><span>prevailing paradigms in fields concerned with the study of language and set the stage for the rethinking of the whole field of linguistics, often with overt reference to approaches first articulated during the Enlightenment. During this same period, Chomsky’s very public crusade against the Vietnam War, recorded in the pages of the New York Review of Books and assembled in </span>American Power and the New Mandarins,<span> his on-going critique of American foreign policy, his analyses of the Middle East and Central America, his long-standing local and international activism, and his studies (sometimes with Edward Herman) of how media functions in contemporary society, have combined to provoke some very strong feelings, positive and negative, about him and his work. The effect that he has upon people on account of his actions and his views extends across national, social, and institutional lines, and the ever-growing corpus of work he has undertaken in the political realm is a remarkable testament to what an intellectual can accomplish when engaged ‘beyond the ivory tower’.</span>
Answer:
The Age of Absolutism refers to period in French history where the Monarch has Absolute power over the country and all it's resources.
Explanation:
An example is that of Napoleon Bonaparte or Louis the 16th. As absolute Monarchy, there were increases in taxation to not only help build a powerful army but also to fund the lavish lifestyles of these kings.
A king would also influence the local religion and social customs that would sometimes out them in odds with other religiously motivated monarchs in Europe.
As tensions grew and the government expenditure grew even larger, a war and territorial gain would be seen as the best way to not only increase power but eventually generate more revenue.
This was in stark contrast to smaller countries in Europe, especially modern-day Belgium or Germany where the power of the King was gradually decreasing.
They could neither build an army as big as France's and did not have the will to do so.
Hence, during this time, the French were able to annex millions of acres of new land and build the largest territorial Empire in Europe.
