The Indian Rebellion of 1857 had diverse political, economic, military, religious and social causes. ... The spark that led to a mutiny in several sepoy companies was the issue of new gunpowder cartridges for the Enfield rifle in February, 1857. A rumour was spread that the cartridges were made from cow and pig fat.
Answer:
Northerners opposed counting slaves as part of the population if they had no rights, while southerners supported counting slaves. According to the compromise, five slaves would count as three free persons when calculating how many representatives each state received in the House of Representatives.
Explanation:
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise established during the 1787 Philadelphia Convention between the colonies of the North and the South. This compromise considered, in the rules for counting people represented in the House of Representatives, that a slave was counted up to three fifths of a free man.
The question was important, as the population count would then be used to determine the number of seats each state would have in the US House of Representatives. The Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of the slave states in the House of Representatives compared to the voters in the free states until the Civil War.
Answer:
An ornament is a decoration. You can also ornament something by making it more beautiful or festive. The most common use of ornament is probably in Christmas ornaments, which decorate a tree.
Explanation:
a thing used or serving to make something look more attractive but usually
hiiii
Explanation:
im also bored
Answer:
The revolutions of the American Colonies, France and Latin America had a common thread in that they wanted free from rule by a corrupt government. The Colonies in America wanted free from under British rule but wanted to keep the laws and traditions they had acquired from England.
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
