The forms of Government in china differ from the forms of government in costa rica because Chinese political system is authoritarian while the one in Costa Rica is a democratic republic.
<h3>How did the forms of
Government in china differ from the
forms of government in costa rica?</h3>
Costa Rica can be described as a country that practice a democratic republic which has a very strong system of constitutional checks and balances.
Chinese political system on the other hand is authoritarian , which made it to be differnt.
It should be noted that Authoritarianism which is the form of government that is been adopted by the Chinese is been described as the rejection of political plurality.
It should be noted that this involves the use of strong central power , and this is to be able to preserve the political status quo in the system.
It involves the reductions as regards the rule of law as well as separation of powers and this is not inline with the democratic voting.
Learn more about Government at:
brainly.com/question/18464634
#SPJ1
<span><span>a. France's loss of its Canadian colonies in the Seven Years' War
</span>
</span>British Canada ganed a large French population as a result of
NOT:
b. The flight of Canada of French Protestants in the eighteenth century
c. French citizens fleeing the Napoleonic wars
<span>d. French fur traders being driven out of the United States</span>
John Wesley and his younger brother both served as Anglican ministers in the 1700s. They are considered the founders of the Methodist denomination in 1730s. With the help of Wesley, Methodist leaders were involved with the most pressing issues in society at the time such as the abolition of slavery and reforms in the prison system.
Answer:
The Kansas-Nebraska Law was passed in 1854. This law had the objective of creating two new states, Kansas and Nebraska, which would define their acceptance or not of slavery through popular sovereignty, in which the people would vote by accepting it or not. This situation clearly violated what was established in the Missouri Compromise, since both territories were north of the 36º 30 'parallel, established by said commitment as the limit between the slave states and the free states.
This situation, which protected the possibility of popularly deciding on slavery, intensified the conflict between slavers and abolitionists, since both groups were allowed to take a direct part in the establishment or not of slavery in those territories. Thus, when thousands of representatives of both groups moved to Kansas to participate in the voting, a situation of confrontation and violence between the two was generated, which became known as Bleeding Kansas.