Answer:
During the reign of Philip II, Spain reached the height of its influence and power, and remained firmly Roman Catholic. Philip saw himself as a champion of Catholicism, both against the Muslim Ottoman Empire and the Protestants.
As the Spanish Empire was not a single monarchy with one legal system but a federation of separate realms, Philip often found his authority overruled by local assemblies, and his word less effective than that of local lords.
When Philip’s health began failing, he worked from his quarters in the Palace-Monastery-Pantheon of El Escorial, which he built with Juan Batista de Toledo and which was another expression of Philip’s commitments to protect Catholics against the raising influence of Protestantism across Europe.
Philip’s foreign policies were determined by a combination of Catholic fervor and dynastic objectives. He considered himself the chief defender of Catholic Europe, both against the Ottoman Turks and against the forces of the Protestant Reformation.
Wars with Dutch Provinces, England, France, and the Ottoman Empire all had the undermining religious aspects of protecting Catholicism in increasingly Protestant Europe or protecting Christianity against Islam.
Because Philip II was the most powerful European monarch in an era of war and religious conflict, evaluating both his reign and the man himself has become a controversial historical subject
Hope this helps!
Answer: November 1862
Battle of Antietam
Frustrated that McClellan had again failed to destroy Lee's army, Lincoln officially removed him from command in November 1862.
Explanation:have a good day
The two main areas that led to disagreement before the Civil War would include the dispute over slavery and the argument over states' rights.
With the dispute over slavery, some states, especially in the North, believed the institution of slavery was morally wrong and wanted to stop slavery from spreading to expanding territories or areas.
That's why in the Compromise of 1850, California became a free state and slave trade was banned in Washington, D.C. because of all the support going against slavery.
This terrible practice of slavery was talked about in books like <em>Uncle Tom's Cabin</em> by Harriet Beecher Stowe, and also was spoken out by famous abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and others.
People in the Southern states believed slavery was part of their lifestyle, culture, and economy, and argued that it needed to thrive to keep the South going.
They wanted slavery to expand to territories and other states, like the argument of pushing slavery to go to Missouri.
The South also believed that their individual state should have more power over the federal government and that they should have the right to get rid of federal laws if needed. The South was not in favor of Abraham Lincoln keeping the country together when they were very divided on the issue of slavery as well as some government laws.
The North believed that the Union or country should stay together and that the federal government should have more power than the individual states.
Either A or D I think. I’m not sure. Most likely A.
<span>I
think this requires my opinion so I would say that I would lean on the process
of controlled isolationism. The analogy behind it would be like this:
I will not bother you so do not bother me, and if you would feel my wrath if
you try and harm me.</span>
