Answer:
Short answer: More power due to theocracy.
An absolute monarch allows the government to control the wealth, status and life of the people. At first this may seem liberating but it could actually be good. Most people that were a monarch ran under a theocracy, they believed to have divine right from God himself. This would make the monarch the most powerful ruler, which means they would get to make decisions. As for the people they could always go to one person and count on one person for the greater good of their country. All decisions would be made by this monarch and the people wouldn't have to go through many. Change relied on changing the opinion of the monarch. If you had a bad monarch you are doomed and the people hate you. If you have a good monarch the people love you and you may thrive due to a better public ethic.
Answer:
A market system relies on market forces to determine production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. Most property and economic decisions are in the hands of private individuals. A command system, on the other hand, relies upon the state rather than individuals or markets.
Answer:
Option: B) the ruling in the "Dred Scott" case.
Explanation:
The Compromise of 1850 reduced the political dispute between slave and free states (the South and the north). The Compromise of 1850 tried to settle conflicts over slavery as new territories joined America after the Mexican-American War. It admitted California as a free with no slavery, left New Mexico and Utah to decide themselves. It made it easier for slave owners to reclaim runways following the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
The correct answer is:
C) They showed the country that integration could be successful.
hope this helps!!!! :)
