Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:
"What warrant [right] have we to take that land, which is and hath been of long time possessed [by] others . . . ? "That which is common to all is proper to none. [Native Americans] ruleth over many lands without title or property; for they enclose [fence in] no ground, neither have they cattle to maintain it. . . . And why may not Christians have liberty to go and dwell amongst them in their waste[d] lands and woods (leaving them such places as they have [fertilized] for their corn) . . . ? For God hath given to the sons of men a twofold right to the earth; there is a natural right and a civil [political] right. The first right was natural when men held the earth in common, every man sowing and feeding where he pleased. Then, as men and cattle increased, they appropriated some parcels of ground by enclosing [them as property] . . . And this in time got them a civil right."
Descreva brevemente UM argumento apresentado no trecho.
Answer:
Since Native Americans did not claim their civil rights over the land they inhabit, what counts is the natural right that God gave to all men, so it is justifiable for Christians to own the land together with the natives.
Explanation:
The text shown in the question above was written by John Winthrop, who was part of the English team to be the first settlers of North America and later became governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In this text, Winthrop takes a position on the colonists' dictate to live in America, even though it is a land that already had inhabitants and "owners.
In that text, Winthrop claims that God gave men the natural direction over the land, where any land owned them all. Men, through their activities, assumed civil rights over pieces of land, where they became owners and could prevent anyone other than them from using it. However, Native Americans have never claimed civil rights to their land, which allows natural law to prevail and makes room for good Christians to own it.
Hello,
Your question states:
Which conclusion would make the most sense after looking at the graph?
Your answer would be:
The infliction of heavy casualties upon the communists did not bring about a US victory in Vietnam
Answer and Explanation:
Transport innovation stimulated national unity in the country because it promoted social and economic improvements in all regions of the country, simultaneously. This was because transport innovation expanded markets, which boosted the economy, allowed people to transition across the country, changed the landscape and boosted American social integration, increasing contact between regions. This innovation happened due to the construction of roads, canals and railroads.
I'd have to say C. Abraham got a bunch of land and descendants from God if he promised to have every male circumcised 8 days after birth. If he didn't, God would most likely take away all his land and fortune and do something bad to them so in exchange for protection makes the most sense to me.
