<span>The most basic difference lies in their view of human nature. For Hobbes, humans are eager of power and under the state of nature we tend to kill each other. For this reason, we need a social contract (in order to survive). For Locke, the state of nature is not as pessimistic as Hobbes. We can colaborate, but the problem is in property. Locke wrote something like when we have issues of who is the owner of what (specially under scarcity) we need the social contract protecting our work materialized as property.
I recommend you Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government. It is everything there and quite clearer than I have tried to explain it.</span>
Accuracy, first or second person, .org .gov .History channal.
<span>PRINTCITE</span>
An ambiguous, controversial concept, Jacksonian Democracy in the strictest sense refers simply to the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic party after 1828. More loosely, it alludes to the entire range of democratic reforms that proceeded alongside the Jacksonians’ triumph—from expanding the suffrage to restructuring federal institutions. From another angle, however, Jacksonianism appears as a political impulse tied to slavery, the subjugation of Native Americans, and the celebration of white supremacy—so much so that some scholars have dismissed the phrase “Jacksonian Democracy” as a contradiction in terms.
Of Reformation in England
The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Commonwealth
<span>The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates</span>
Farmers of the constitution created a legislative branch with a bicameral structure because it <span>provided the perfect opportunity to come to an agreement. Small states got their equal representation in the Senate, while large states got their proportional representation in the House, and everyone got what they wanted. :)
:)</span>
