Great question. A dictator’s powers werepermitted by the Roman Senate — and according to the Roman constitution, for a limited period of time. In theory, a dictator for life would be as powerful as a king; however, because such powers were traditionally granted by the Senate, there was the significance that they could also be taken away by the Senate.
But with a king (that is, “Rex” in Latin), the office of king was in theory granted not by the Senate at all — which was only an advisory body to a king — but by the gods themselves. No vote by the Senate could even challenge the authority of a king. I suppose that by throwing out the Tarquin kings, the Romans had made a statement that they had misunderstood the will of the gods when they had accepted such terrible rulers.
The other difference is that a king passed the kingship onto an heir, that is, a son. It was far from clear that a “Dictator for Life” would pass that office on to a son. So, one (kingship) was permanent; the other was not.
Ironically, when Augustus, the grand nephew of Julius Caesar, became the first true “Emperor,” he ultimately was more powerful than many a king. But because he kept the outward forms of the Republic (such as the Senate) and avoided the dreaded title “Rex,” many Romans felt for a long time they still lived in a Republic.
C. The wealth and curiosity the Renaissance created made it the right time to explore the New World. Since Renaissance is considered as an 'age of discovery' and the rising of many institutes that promotes intellectuals became a normal trend, the desire to explore and colonize new lands to spread their culture and ideology became so great and started the age of exploring new lands and conquering new territories.
The group of Free soil initiated movement or was originated after the Liberty Party ended after its poor performance in the 1844 leadership contest. Thy criticized the extension of slavery into any new territories or states because of fear of competitiveness with Southern slaveholders.
Usually, they claimed that the state could not abolish slavery where it already occurred but could limit slavery in new locations. The northerners who wished to buy property in the West feared they couldn't deal with slave labour financially. It contributed to the call for free labour by the party. Thus the motto of the Free Soil Party reflects the participants mission of "free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men".
What was the impact of the civil rights protests in Birmingham?
B. Americans saw the police brutality and injustice faced by civil rights protestors.
Answer:
A. <u>I have known them since a long time</u>.