<span>The gold standard is a monetary system where a country's currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold.</span><span><span>The
farmers opposed the gold standard because in order to live on their
farms, they needed to take out a mortgage on them because they couldn't
pay the entire fee by themselves. Thus, farmers were in debt, and a gold
AND silver standard would help them by increasing the amount of
currency in circulation. Inflation would help debtors because more
currency would be produced, therefore the value of each currency would
decrease and the value of their debts would similarly decrease, making
it easier to pay off. The amount of debt would stay the same, but they
would be getting higher wages because of inflation. The wealthy and
eastern industrial workers supported a gold standard because inflation
would not help them. The wealthy had savings accounts and such, and
inflation would lessen the value of their savings. Similarly, the
industrial workers might also have a small savings account, but would
not have a mortgage on a farm like the westerners (they would live in
tenement buildings), so inflation would not have a positive effect on
them either. </span> </span>
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
A polis of ancient Greece was a a)politically independent unit that included a city and surrounding land. A polis meant the city-states which existed during ancient Greece and would stand today as what it's modern city would be called. A polis also stood as a form of identity as it would be a person's citizenship and can be used to describe a body of citizens.
This unexpected Northern win gave Lincoln the credibility to issue the Emancipation Proclamation without making it look like a desperate measure.The Proclamation made it ethically impossible for Britain to aid the Confederates - a most significant outcome.The battle also spelt the end for McClellan.Although he had won the battle, he failed to pursue and destroy the Army of Northern Virginia, which the whole of Lincoln's cabinet thought he should have done, and he was promptly replaced by Burnside.so i would say D is your answer to number 2 idk about 1
