They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. we must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. what is the meaning of this line from the declaration of independence? a. the british government has supported the natural rights of the colonists over time, but the colonists believe they can do a better job on their own. b. the colonists believe that the british government has abused its power and, as a result, they have the right to split away and start their own government. c. the british government has not provided enough control to ensure the people’s safety and happiness, so the colonists are making a request for additional laws. d. the colonists assign blame to the king, as well as the british people and parliament, for ignoring their concerns and must separate themselves from both.

D. The colonists assign blame to the king, as well as the British people and Parliament, for ignoring their concerns and must separate themselves from both.

When Jefferson wrote the words "they too" at the beginning of this paragraph, he was making a reference to the British people. He argues that, as British subjects, the colonists tried to convince the British people to listen to their complaints, but that the people were deaf to their pleas for help. Therefore, they are also to blame for the separation of Americans from the British empire.

abraham lincoln, according to anyone who was connected with agriculture, represented the worst of northern politicians. shortly after lincoln was elected, south carolina seceded from the union. they along with other southern states, retained their anger. in a way, it was their own fault: the democrats were split in the south. some wanted slavery to be extended in other states that were about to join the union and some didn't want it badly enough. lincoln had a solid backing from his party: the republicans were united in not wanting slavery to be expanded.

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!