Hey there!
The ancient Greeks used direct democracy, and we use representative. The difference is that first of all, with a direct democracy, the opinions of the people directly affect the outcome of the decision being made. Those eligible to vote voted in assemblies, and the response of the majority ruled.
Here- it's a bit different. We use representative democracy- meaning that we elect representatives to vote and speak for us on the behalf of the people.
There's our difference right there. A direct democracy - like I said is where decisions directly affect outcomes, as opposed to where representatives are elected on behalf of the people to make laws and represent their voters and territory.
Your answer is C.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
d) They consumed the same foods and shared recipes and cooking techniques.
Explanation:
Different civilization consumed different types of food that can be produced by their unique environment. Their recipes of cooking food is also different from one another. These civilizations has also many similarities such as centralized government, division of society into religious chief, military personnel, artisans, peasants and slaves. Their religious beliefs are also different from one another.
It's being told through third person, impersonal and omniscient point of view.
Hope this helps
The Roman empire was well organized with good roads & active trade, so the new religion could spread easily. Constantine was a sun worshipper who feigned Christianity so he could take control and throw out it's one and only goal
Answer:
It ruled against Dred Scott and set aside the Missouri Compromise and popular sovereignty.
Explanation:
The case Dred Scott v. Sanford argued whether a slave can obtain his freedom when he step on a state that make slavery illegal.
It happened in 1857. At that time, Dred Scott's (A slave) was taken by his owner from Missouri to Illinois. (According to Missouri compromise, It is still legal to own slaves in Missouri but It is Illegal to do so in Illinois).
Scott tried to make his case to the court stating that as soon as he entered Illinois, his status as a slave should be voided and he should be considered as a citizen.
At that time, The Missouri supreme court ruled against Scott's plead. The court stated that he could never be a citizen since citizenship only apply to white people. So he's still a slave no matter where his slave owner took him.
