ZACHARY TAYLOR.

History

1 answer:

Murljashka [212]3 years ago

6 0

ZACHARY TAYLOR.

1. what major issue did taylor have to deal with when he entered office?

2. where did taylor stand with respect to the extension of slavery in the west?

MILLIARD FILLMORE.

1. did the compromise of 1850 satisfy both sides?

2. fillmore was the last president from which political party?

FRANKLIN PIERCE.

1. what tragedy at the beginning of pierce’s administration, cast a long shadow over his presidency?

2. the passage of what act doomed pierce’s presidency and brought about significant chaos?

JAMES BUCHANAN.

1. what position did buchanan take with regard to the dred scott decision?

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

1. what bold, unprecedented, moves did lincoln make to grow the power of president in an effort to save the union?

2. what was lincoln’s more profound accomplishment in the office?

You might be interested in

What accounts for the success of absolutism in some parts of Europe and its failure

Ghella [55]

Answer:

Because even if the Absolutism has similarities and was applied in almost the entire Europe, each country modeled its conceptions to adapt to reality. And this reality could be social, political or religious.

Explanation:

I believe that the better way to understand this point is analyzing the two major countries where the Absolutism was strong: France and England.

France was ruled by Louis XIV in the 17th century. He describes himself as "The state is me" (“L'Etat c'est Moi”). This monarch is the main definition of the absolutist ruler. To support his government, Louis XIV follows the idea of Divine Right of Kings which argued that the monarch had divine powers and was elected by God. Thus, his actions and laws were divine and couldn't be disrespected. The question is: why this conception worked in France? Because it was a catholic country, and religious perceptions were followed without question. Plus, Louis XIV had no limits in his powers. I mean, there was no law or political scheme that could limit him.
On the contrary, in England, the king was subjected to the Parlament. However, only this restriction was not sufficed to limit his power. The main point is that the British kings followed the idea of a social contract (popularized by the philosopher Thomas Hobbes). This idea attests that a king has duties with its people, and the Parlament was always remembering him about this. So, he couldn't do whatever he wanted.