<span>The Austro-Hungarian empire was endangered by feelings of nationalism because there were multiple national groups within the empire. So fulfilling nationalist goals would mean a dividing of the empire. The mere fact that the question refers to the empire as "Austro-Hungarian" is already a strong hint of the issue. Prior to 1867, it had been known as simply the Austrian Empire, but a compromise in 1867 meant that a dual monarchy was recognized (an Austrian ruler and a Hungarian ruler). The Hungarians were given self-governing authority over their own internal affairs in their portion of the empire. Other people groups within the empire would seek their own recognition as well -- Czechs, Serbs, Croats, etc. So where nationalism was a uniting factor in regions like the Italian peninsula and the German territories north of Austria, for the Austrian empire, nationalism was a dividing force.</span>
Here's link to the answer:
tinyurl.com/wtjfavyw
Answer:
B
Explanation:
An outspoken Anti-Federalist, Henry opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which he felt put too much power in the hands of a national government. His influence helped create the Bill of Rights, which guaranteed personal freedoms and set limits on the government's power.
Answer:
The regular workers was prospering the extent that residents were concerned.
Likewise with any modern insurgency, it was the same in the United States of America, a country that was prospering at the times and firmly building up, that there would be another class of specialists who needed to do the modest assignments noone else needed to do yet were required to be done on the off chance that they needed to have an effective industrializaiton of their nation.
Therefore the appropriate response is the average workers.
Laozi believed that people would respond if there were clear rewards or punishments for their actions.
