The correct answer is - preserved the union.
The Civil War in the United States was a long and bloody conflict. It was between the North and the South, the two halves that had totally different policies and ambitions for the future. Despite the war being terrible and with lot of people who lost their lives, as all wars, something good came out of it too. The big positive of the Civil War was that it actually managed to preserve the unity between the states, thus creating the mighty United States of America, which eventually became the biggest power house on the planet.
Thomas Hobbes believed that people were inherently suspicious of one another and in competition with one another. This led him to propose that government should have supreme authority over people in order to maintain security and a stable society.
John Locke argued that people were born as blank slates, open to learning all things by experience. Ultimately this meant Locke viewed human beings in a mostly positive way, and so his approach to government was to keep the people empowered to establish and regulate their own governments for the sake of building good societies.
Further explanation:
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 evil 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. :-)
Reason , independence , natural environments
Patents and copyrights encourage innovation because they allow people to be rewarded for their creations. For example, if an individual creates a new type of cell phone they can receive a patent or copyright on that phone. This means the ability to make and sell this phone belongs solely to the individual or the company they represent.
Now if this cell phone becomes wildly popular and people start to buy it, it allows the creator to make a significant amount of money of their creation. Along with this, the person can sue any person who tries to take their design and sell the phone themselves.
Ultimately, patents and copyrights protect people who come up with amazing innovations and allows them to accumulate massive amounts of wealth.
I’m pretty sure it’s B but I could be wrong
I hope this is helpful but sorry if it isn’t
