Can you think of other historical examples where a revolution intended to give more power to the people results in giving more power to the rulers, and is this necessarily a contradiction?

There's numerous examples where a revolution had a purpose to give more rights to the people but ended up as an authoritarian system when all the power went into the hands of a single person. Some examples are Russia, or rather the Soviet Union with Lenin and Stalin, China with Mao Zedong, Cuba with Fidel Castro, all of which were also leaders with socialist ideologies.

It is a contradiction for sure because the revolutions were led so that the people had more rights, freedom of expression, better life, but ended up giving the power to a single person which did not provided anything of it. Also, if someone tried to oppose the leader usually ended up ''missing''.

the reform movements that arose during the antebellum period in america focused on specific issues: temperance, abolishing imprisonment for debt, pacifism, antislavery, abolishing capital punishment, amelioration of prison conditions (with prison's purpose reconceived as rehabilitation rather than punishment), the humane treatment of animals, the humane and just treatment of native americans, the establishment of public institutions for the care of the destitute, orphans, blind, and mentally ill, the establishment of public schools, the abolition of tobacco use, vegetarianism, health reform, homeopathic medicine, woman's rights (including, at first, especially the establishment of a woman's right to own property apart from her husband and her right to sue for divorce), and the amelioration of labor conditions (including higher pay, the right to form unions, the right to strike, and the demand for limits on the number of work hours, and safe working conditions).

explanation:

your answer would be (b)