I've read the essay and the correct answer is definitely "A government that is good at securing civil liberties will also keep religious liberties".
The Maryland farmer makes it pretty clear in his closing statement, which reads: "Civil and religious liberty are inseparably interwoven—whilst government is pure and equal—religion will be uncontaminated:—The moment government becomes disordered, bigotry and fanaticism take root and grow—they are soon converted to serve the purpose of usurpation, and finally, religious persecution reciprocally supports and is supported by the tyranny of the temporal powers".
Both civil and religious liberties need to be secured by a government. The point he's stressing in the essay is that often times religious freedom is compromised as a <u>consequence</u> of ineffective protection of civil liberties.
Another quote from the essay that illustrates this idea very well would be the following: "where civil government is preserved free, there can be no religious tyranny".
At the same time, the farmer cites historical examples in which an imposed religion was used by governments to persecute people that didn't share the dominant beliefs, establishing a religious tyranny that severly overpassed civil liberties. This is why the integrity of both civil and relgious freedom are unequivocally interwoven and must be protected side by side.
Hope this helps!
Traditionally, the notion of what an average American citizen needs is apple pie and roast beef for dinner. If people are eating well and have some fun from time to time then the government is doing its job properly. The Republican party believes today stands for libertarian ideas that if you help companies that hire people and make the market free, the companies will give higher wages to the citizens and they'll be able to give a good life. The evidence for this kind of thinking is seen in laws that deal with tax cuts for companies. However, a counterclaim for this is the fact that most companies don't use the extra money to help the workers but rather the rich capitalists use that money for themselves. You can use these ideas as a starting point for your essay and write a full one.
1854
The Gadsden Purchase, or Treaty, was an agreement between the United States and Mexico, finalized in 1854, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $10 million for a 29,670 square mile portion of Mexico that later became part of Arizona and New Mexico.
One event that was not a cause of Southern colonies shifting from servitude to slavery was the B. French and Indian War.
<h3>Why did colonies shift to slavery from servitude?</h3><h3 />
The colonies found that enslaved people were easier to control than indentured servants as the latter still had several rights under the law.
The slave laws passed in V-irginia and Massachusetts took away the rights of African Americans and made it easier to enslave them.
When Bacon's Rebellion broke out, indentured servants of both races came against the wealthy and to avoid such a union, the elite enslaved Blacks.
The French and Indian War came a century after African Americans had been enslaved and so did not contribute to the shift to slavery.
Options for this question include:
A. Bacon's Rebellion
B. French and Indian War
C. Slave laws passed in V-irginia and Massachusetts.
D. Thirty Year's War.
Find out more on the shift from indentured servants at brainly.com/question/1563715.
#SPJ1
