1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
jarptica [38.1K]
3 years ago
15

What differences were there, if any, in the core ideals in the Declaration of Independence and the “I Have a Dream Speech”

History
1 answer:
stich3 [128]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:

Explanation:

1) Unalienable Rights – These rights are natural and secure rights.  It guarantees the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These right are declared natural and inherent.  

2) Life – You can live your life as it pleases you, although, without breaking the law. You can eat whatever you want or buy whatever you want because of this right in the Declaration of Independence.  

3) Liberty – The right to do what you want freely as long it does interfere with the rights of others or the law.  

4) Pursuit of Happiness – The right that allows you to do whatever that makes you happy and allows you to follow you happiness as long as you are not breaking the law.  

                                                                                                                                                                 5) All Men Are Created Equal - It means that all people have the same                                                                                                                                                                         rights and they are all equal regardless of sex, religion, race, appearance,                                                                                                                                                                    etc. We all have the same rights and we are all equal to each other.

You might be interested in
How did the assassination of arch Duke Franz Ferdinand lead to war?
inna [77]
On this day in 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand<span> of Austria and his wife Sophie are shot to death by a Bosnian Serb nationalist during an official visit to the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. The killings sparked a chain of events that </span>led<span> to the outbreak of World </span>War<span> I by early August.</span>
7 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was the long term effect of the “Bleeding Kansas” problem?
Ksenya-84 [330]
The north and south became more divided over the issue of slavery
4 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Much is known about the beginning of Teotihuacan's history.<br> a. True<br> b. False
Karolina [17]
No, it is false that much is known about the beginning of Teotihuacan's history, since the archeological history and evidence is scarce--leaving historians to rely on a weak record. 
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Salinization was a problem in Sumer but is no longer an issue today. A. True B. False
ivann1987 [24]
False. Salinization wasn't a problem in summer but is no longer an issue today.
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What three things would conquered people would have to do in the Roman Empire?
mina [271]

Answer:

Generally they had two very different approaches. By ancient standards — not ours, of course — the Romans were stern but not sadistic conquerors.

Their standard tactic was to enroll defeated enemies as Roman allies or socii. The local elites (or at least, a biddable subset of them) would remain in charge of local affairs. They would be self-governing as far as domestic affairs went. The primary requirement was that the foreign policy of an allied state was firmly subordinated to Rome: no independent alliances or wars were allowed. Socii were required to contribute troops to Roman wars; these troops fought in independent units under their own officers, but high command was exclusively Roman.

The worst thing that usually befell a defeated enemy was the loss of some territory, which could be taken to provide land to Roman settlers who would live there in a new city of their own: a colonia. The colonia was in part a form of plunder, since it took valuable agricultural lands from the defeated enemy. It was also a military foothold intended to keep an eye on strategic locales. However coloniae usually worked as agents of Romanisation as well, particularly in places like Gaul and Spain where the local people would see a Roman colony as a valuable market, a source of exotic goods, and a conduit to the wider world.

Most conquered peoples were gradually assimilated into Roman citizenship. In Italy, this came about through an actual war: long time Roman allies fought to demand full citizenship in the Social War of 91–89BC. More often, local elites would become Roman citizens on a piecemeal basis. People farther down the social scale had fewer opportunities but it was hardly impossible: for example the apostle Paul, a Jew from the province of Cilicia in modern Turkey, was nevertheless a Roman citizen. Eventually the whole of a conquered region might acquire “Latin Rights,” a kind of limited citizenship for every free inhabitant.

The extension of citizenship completed the integration of all the upper classes across the Roman world: non-Romans eventually came to outnumber Italians in the civil service, the army, the Senate and in the ranks of emperors. Finally in 212 AD all free persons in the empire became Roman citizens — though by that time citizenship had little practical political meaning since the empire had no democratic institutions above the level of local government.

In general this system worked pretty well, and by the standards of the time it was fairly generous: the Romans only rarely resorted to the wholesale enslavement and depopulation of defeated enemies, which was otherwise not uncommon.

The flipside of this, however, is that Romans took a very grim view of “allies” who tried to reassert themselves. They regarded a surrender to themselves as a permanently binding contract, and they regarded any breach of that contract with unrestrained fury very different from their normal tactics. The most egregious violence that the Romans inflicted on defeated enemies — the sack of Syracuse (212 BC), the destruction of Carthage and Corinth (both in 146 BC), the levelling of Jerusalem in 70AD — was done to those the Romans regarded as faithless allies, rather than open enemies.

In short, the Romans offered their opponents a mix of incentives: good terms for easy surrender, but terrible punishment for what the Romans saw as “ingratitude” or “stubbornness”

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • As you can see I've done most of this chart I just can't figure out the first column. If you cant read the writing please pm me.
    11·1 answer
  • Jesus told his critics that he had come to call
    14·2 answers
  • The MOST important motivation for the English government to explore and settle new lands in the 17th century was:
    6·1 answer
  • Read the following excerpt from the Declaration of Independence:
    13·1 answer
  • Losing favor after 1828, the earliest method of nominating candidates for office was the legislative _____.
    6·2 answers
  • What the answer to this someone help me please ?
    5·2 answers
  • What kind of behavior did Leonidas and his men display at Thermopylae?
    10·1 answer
  • What is more important the robust of public domain or the well being of private interests?
    8·1 answer
  • Read the quotation. Every man and every woman in this Nation—regardless of party—who have the right to register and to vote, and
    9·2 answers
  • How did the United States imperialize Puerto Rico?
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!