Which of the following demonstrates the explanation of power in source 2? A. The absolute rule of France under Louis XIV
B. The cultural Melding under Akbar in Mughal India
C. The tribute empire of the Mongols under Chinggis Khan
D. The cross-cultural Ottoman state under Mehmed Conqueror

A.

Explanation:

It's definitely A on edge. Source 2 was literally written by a French dude who is praising the king. The passage is pasted below:

Source 2

"It appears from all this that the person of the king is sacred, and that it is a sacrilege to attack him. God has His prophets anoint them with a sacred unction, as He has His pontiffs and His altars anointed. But, even without the external application of this unction, their charge renders them sacred, as being the representatives of the divine majesty, delegated by His providence to the execution of His designs. It is thus that God Himself speaks of Cyrus as His anointed—‘his right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him.’ The title of Christ is given to kings; and everywhere we see them called the Christ, or the anointed of the Lord.”

Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, explaining the divine right of kings, 1678

This should be proof enough.

the correct answer is: the fact that the anti-federalist papers were considered poorly written.

du boi was considered a radical because he wanted the immediate end for segregation. the biggest different between him and booker t. washington is that, even though washington believed that segregation should be considered illegal, he did not believe at all that a law was needed to keep blacks away from whites and that this would be something natural (to have the races apart) for a long time until society adjusted, while du boi believe that agitation was the only way to end segregation.