Explain why "the divine right of kings" clashes with the idea of a social contract.

For many centuries, kings and rulers in general were thought to rule "by divine right." That is, their rule was God´s will. With economic progress in Europe and the spreading of new ideas, especially during the Enlightenment era, that belief was challenged. Kings or emperors were traditionally considered the sovereigns. The Enlightenment thinkers stated that all men should be equal before the law, and a state´s sovereignty lies in the people, not in a monarch´s will. Those thinkers - particularly Jean-Jacques Rousseau - said that the governed must express their consent to be be governed in a social contract.

Explanation:

"the divine right of kings" justifies royalty and power of kings in terms of its supranatural or divine nature. From such a perspective power of kings is derived from divine power. Idea of social contract is a product of secular or profane political thought where social power is not conceived as divine.

Explanation: concept of divine rights of kings is as old as literate society (Sumerian epics like Enuma Elish mention power of kings as divine power) whereas idea of social contract (Hobbes, Locke etc.) is a product of increasingly secular society.

in the 1800s, locomotives powered by steam made transportation faster and cheaper. the resulting rapid growth of railroads led to the connection of the atlantic and pacific railroad in oklahoma city in 1897.

in the last years of the century, the improvement of steam-based engines the expansion and growth of railroads. this growth increased when the companies started to build and expand, such as the atlantic and pacific railroad, which connected new mexico with california, and missouri with oklahoma. many of these new networks were built in oklahoma, and these changes transportation henceforward.