Decision-making power in an autocracy is in the control of "<span>a single individual". This is most likely due to a despotic ruler with even more power than most kings and queens. </span>
I can't really answer your question (as I don't really know enough about 18th century France), but I just want to clear up an (understandable) misconception about Feudalism in your question.
The French revolution was adamant and explicit in its abolition of 'feudalism'. However, the 'feudalism' it was talking about had nothing at all to do with medieval 'feudalism' (which, of course, never existed). What the revolutionaries had in mind, in my own understanding of it, was the legally privileged position of the aristocracy/2nd estate. This type of 'feudalism' was a creation of early modern lawyers and, as a result, is better seen as a product of the early-modern monarchical nation-state, than as a precursor to it. It has nothing to do with the pre-nation-state medieval period, or with the Crusades.
Eighteenth-century buffs, feel free to chip in if I've misrepresented anything, as this is mostly coming from my readings about the historiographical development of feudalism, not any revolutionary France expertise, so I may well have misinterpreted things.
<em>Hello there, and thank you for asking your question here on brainly.
<u>Answer: B) Acting as a witness against yourself. The Fifth Amendment is the act of exposing oneself generally, by making a statement to 'an accusation or charge of crime; to involve oneself or another person in a criminal wrongdoing, or in danger thereof.'
</u>
Hope this helped you! ♥</em>
The union attempted to blockade other southern states. By doing this the union thought they could cause the economy of the confederate states to collapse
No that is false it was not part of a tropical land
