Who took the title The First Emperor?

Final answer:

The Progressive Era was a transformative period of social activism and political reform addressing the challenges of industrialization and urbanization from the 1890s to the 1920s. Progressives were diverse reformers, often middle class and educated, who advocated for government action to improve society, promote democracy, and advocate for social justice. They implemented reforms at grassroots levels before influencing federal government policies.

Explanation:

What was the Progressive Era?

The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform in the United States from the 1890s to the 1920s. The era was marked by efforts to address problems caused by industrialization, urbanization, immigration, and political corruption. Activists sought to improve working conditions, combat the ills of rapid urban sprawl, and fight for women's suffrage. These reform initiatives began at state and local levels and eventually reached the federal government.

Who were the Progressives?

Progressives were a diverse group of reformers who were typically middle class and well educated. They aimed to improve the condition of various groups within society and to reform the capitalist system they saw as efficient but flawed.

This movement comprised not only Anglo-Saxon Protestants but also included African Americans, women and men, and residents of both urban and rural areas. They were united in their belief that government action could address social issues and promote efficiency, democracy, and social justice.

Progressivism at the Grassroots and National Levels:

Progressivism movements started at the grassroots level, with reformers campaigning on a variety of causes such as temperance, fair pay, and democratic reforms. Investigative journalists, known as muckrakers, played a significant role in exposing inequities and rallying public support for reforms. While initially a grassroots effort, these movements captured the attention of national politics during the early twentieth century, profoundly influencing American political thought.

Answer:

The answer is Constatine I   I know this right because it litterally gives me a paragraph saying it on this essay dont know why the top answer only has a 3.0 some clowns purposely graded it bad

Explanation:

The persecution of Christians continued for almost three hundred years until Emperor Constantine I issued an edict proclaiming Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire in A.D. 313. In 324, he summoned Christian leaders who developed the Nicene Creed, a belief statement that further strengthened the church. Constantine also set the date for celebrating Christ's birth as December 25th. By 325, the kingdom of Aksum, located in modern-day Ethiopia, also declared Christianity the official state religion.

The League of Nations was rejected by the United States due to concerns about sovereignty, foreign conflicts, and partisan divisions.

The League of Nations was rejected by the United States for several reasons. First, many Americans were skeptical of the League's ability to prevent future wars and saw it as an infringement on American sovereignty. Second, some members of the U.S. Senate, particularly conservative Republicans, were concerned that joining the League would entangle the U.S. in foreign conflicts. Lastly, President Woodrow Wilson's personal involvement in promoting the League created partisan divisions, and ultimately, the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, which included provisions for the League of Nations.

https://brainly.com/question/31803791

#SPJ6

The answer is The Whig Party. The north voter base mostly settled to the new Republican Party. In the South, most merged the Know Nothing Party, which ineffectively ran Fillmore in the 1856 presidential election, by which time the Whig Party had turn out to be virtually non-operational. Some past Whigs became Democrats.

The postwar era and the Constitutional Convention revealed sectional and class differences in the United States.

The postwar era and the Constitutional Convention revealed and foreshadowed the existence and growth of sectional and class differences in the United States. During the postwar era, there were conflicts between wealthy property holders and poorer elements of the community regarding the Constitution. Historian Charles Beard argued that these conflicts could be seen in economic class terms, with urban Americans, rich and poor alike, in favor of ratification to promote commerce and business activity, while both rich and poor rural Americans opposed it. These divisions were also evident during the Constitutional Convention, where tensions arose over-representation and the concentration of political power.

The right answer is “Aristotle believed that if a person found and achieved his functions in life he would be truly”

Aristotle enshrines happiness as the main purpose of human life and in what it should be focused. According to him, happiness depends on formation of virtue, considering this virtue more like individualistic social virtues. The philosopher supported the idea that a sincerely happy life needs the contentment of a wide-ranging of conditions, like physical and mental welfare.  

Greek philosophy, particularly the works of Aristotle, challenged Christian scholars to reconcile faith-based Christian teachings with reason-based Greek thought, leading to a period of Scholasticism that aimed to synthesize these divergent approaches.

Challenges to Christian Scholars by Greek Thinkers

The influx of Aristotelian philosophy into Western Europe during the Middle Ages posed significant challenges to Christian scholars. Central to this dilemma was reconciling the logical and empirical methods of Greek philosophy and its non-Christian ideologies with the faith-based principles of Christianity. The question that arose was whether to understand the world through divine revelation found in the Bible or through the human reason championed by philosophers like Aristotle.

At the heart of this controversy in the twelfth century was a resistance to integrating the ideas of a non-Christian philosopher such as Aristotle into Christian theology. This sentiment was captured by some who believed that attempting to make Aristotle's work compatible with Christianity was heretical. However, St. Thomas Aquinas, among others, ushered in a period of Scholasticism, which aimed to harmonize reason with faith. Aquinas, using Aristotle's logical framework, advocated for a synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology, arguing that reason and faith were not at odds but could coexist in harmony.

The challenge was not merely academic. It represented a broader debate on the basis of knowledge and whether new insights should prompt a reassessment of longstanding intellectual traditions. This dilemma was emblematic of the tension between the static worldview of the Church, which desired immutable truths, and the dynamic nature of philosophical inquiry, which emphasized evolving understanding through rationalism.

The 'rule of reason' applied antitrust laws uniformly without distinguishing between good or bad trusts, while Roosevelt's New Nationalism aimed to empower the federal government to regulate trusts in the public interest and was more accepting of responsibly operated large corporations.

The "rule of reason," supported by William Howard Taft, differed from Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism primarily in its approach to handling trusts and government power. Taft's policy did not draw a sharp distinction between 'good' trusts and 'bad' ones like Roosevelt's New Nationalism did and pursued antitrust legislation more vigorously regardless of the trust's perceived morality. Whereas Roosevelt's New Nationalism aimed to create a more powerful federal government to regulate corporations in the public interest and was more accommodating to large corporations that operated responsibly, Taft believed in enforcing the existing antitrust laws more uniformly without moral distinctions.

On the matter of breaking up trusts, Taft, unlike Roosevelt, was less interested in distinguishing between the potentially beneficial uses of large corporate combinations and the harmful ones. He also took on well-known 'good' trusts, and even initiated twice as many antitrust suits as Roosevelt, demonstrating a less discriminating, more legalistic approach to trusts. Taft's vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws revealed a difference in philosophy; he did not necessarily see larger businesses as inherently beneficial and subject to different rules, unlike Roosevelt's belief in regulating but also tolerating large corporations that served the public good.

In the context of the provided answer options, it seems that both C and D responses can be inferred from Taft's approach, but based on the detailed information we have, option C is the most accurate choice: The New Nationalism would back stronger government power to bust trusts while the "rule of reason" would not necessarily weaken that power but apply it more uniformly and without regard to whether trusts were considered to be acting with a conscience or not.

Final answer:

The New Nationalism called for a stronger federal government to regulate trusts in the public interest, while the rule of reason, associated with Taft, applied existing antitrust laws to act against trusts seen as restraining trade. The main distinction lies in the approach towards government power and the regulation of trusts.

Explanation:

The fundamental differences between Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism and William Howard Taft's approach, often referred to as the 'rule of reason,' revolve around their views on government intervention and regulation of trusts. Roosevelt's New Nationalism sought the creation of a more powerful federal government to regulate corporations and the economy in the public interest. This policy recognized some trusts could be 'good' if they served the public interest and should be regulated rather than dismantled. Conversely, Taft, who initiated more antitrust suits than Roosevelt, did not make distinctions between 'good' and 'bad' trusts, instead pursuing legal action against those that acted in restraint of trade, including the so-called good trusts.

Turning to the options provided:

Therefore, the correct answer is C: The New Nationalism would back stronger government power to bust trusts while the 'rule of reason' would weaken that power.

Answer:

True

Explanation:

The answer would be true because in the Bible, Jesus calls Himself the Son of God, as do others. In the synoptic gospels, for example, the title "Son of God" is given to Jesus by the writers.

While Babylonians were centered in Mesopotamia with an urban society and written law, the Hittites originated in Anatolia, living mostly in rural villages and adopting customs from various cultures they encountered.

Both the Babylonian and Hittite Empires were significant powers in the ancient Near East but differed in several key aspects:

Geography and Origins

Social and Economic Structures

Culture and Religion

Military and Political History

Complete question:

Point out the differences between the babylonian and hittite empires.

Voting is the absolute most significant political represent most americans. Therefore, option (E) is accurate answer.

Voting is viewed as the absolute most significant political represent most Americans since it is a major right and a foundation of vote based social orders. At the point when people cast their votes in races, they have the potential chance to straightforwardly take part in molding the bearing of their administration and affecting the strategies and choices that influence their lives.

While other political demonstrations, like soliciting, composing letters to the manager, adding to political missions, and serene fights, are additionally significant types of political commitment, casting a ballot is frequently viewed as the most basic since it can possibly achieve foundational shift and shape the direction of administration through the determination of delegates and the underwriting of strategies.

Learn more about voting, from:

brainly.com/question/31676256

#SPJ6

these extra words are added to pad my precise answer with additional words so there will be enough more words

The Americans always wanted to be a part of the British Empire. The American colonies were always loyal to the Kings and Queens of the British Empire.Until before the American Revolution started, George Washington insisted that independence from the British Empire is the last thing they have in mind.

The correct answer is that the Americans were angry about being part of the British Empire, largely due to restrictive policies and a growing desire for autonomy, which led to significant opposition, especially in New England.

Historical accounts indicate that various acts and policies imposed by the British government, including trade restrictions and a lack of manufacturing autonomy, caused significant resentment among the colonists. This led to a growing sentiment that America, which was rapidly expanding and becoming more populous, did not need to remain under British control, especially an ocean away. The Americas' situation was further exacerbated by the concessions made to the British, which infuriated the American people. Additionally, the opposition in New England was notably strong against these impositions. The discontent also extended to Native American tribes, who supported the British out of fear that an American victory would lead to further loss of their lands.

The complete question is

The Americans were ___ to be part of the British Empire.

a)sad

b)frightened

c)angry

d)alarmed

e)glad

Answer:

The Answer Is True

Explanation: