The Mexican government<span> invited settlers from the United States to take up lands in </span>Texas. However,<span> </span>Mexican<span> leaders really hoped these settlers </span>would<span> become </span>Mexican<span> citizens and be converted to the Roman Catholic faith, the main religion of </span><span>Mexican. Ummm hoped this helped! :D</span>
Answer: Both were government efforts to attract settlers to Georgia and encourage economic growth.
Explanation:
Hobbes had a rather negative view of human nature. Locke's view of human nature was that it started as a "blank slate" (basically neutral), and tended to be a more positive view as a result.
In terms of inalienable rights, Hobbes believed that people gave up their rights in the interests of security when establishing a government to rule over them. Locke believed the people always retain their rights and can replace a government if it abuses those rights.
<u>Further explanation:</u>
Both of these 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 often hurtful 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. :-)
What is the difference between NAWSA and NWP?
• While there was animosity between the workers of NAWSA and NWP at that time, it is fair to see in retrospect that the tactics of the two women’s organizations complemented each other well and created the kind of pressure that was required to pass 19th amendment of the constitution to allow for women suffrage.
• The efforts of NAWSA were moderate while those of NWP were radical in nature.
• Alice Paul was the architect of NWP while Carrie Chapman Catt was the main personality in NAWSA.
• NWP was an offshoot of NAWSA.
• NAWSA was founded in 1890 while NWP got its name in 1917 as it parent organization was Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage formed by Alice Paul in 1913.
• The 19th amendment to the constitution was passed in 1920 that resulted in right to vote for women in US. It is credited to the efforts of both NAWSA and NWP.
Before Grant could capture Richmond, he first had to defeat Confederate forces in A. Petersburg, Virginia. This is because Petersburg was crucial to the supply of Lee's army, and therefore with a defeat of Lee's army here, it would be easier to capture Richmond, the capital of Virginia right down the road.