<span>Any action that could be interpreted (however falsely) as treasonous to the Revolutionary government of France at the time; chiefly, anything that smacked of monarchist sentiment or a return to the "old order," such as supporting landed nobility in any fashion, acting "against" the interests of the Committee, or simply rubbing someone the wrong way.</span>
<span>The question is asking us to choose among the options. The background is that "The British Empire once controlled modern-day India. While many British historians once defended Great Britain's Right to rule over foreign colonies, British historians today largely take a negative view of such colonialism. Which of the following best explains why this change in interpretation might have occurred?" Here, the major reason is that the values changed - before, people believed in the superiority of white people while now it is believed that all people are equal. This means that they have different subjective options that influence how they see the events - biases. So the best answer is:
B. Historians today have different biases than previous historians.</span><span />
Answer:
Explanation:
The legislation in question is the Indian Removal Act, 1830 and the answer is C). John Ross and the Cherokee Indians petitioned the Supreme Court to rule against it.
Could you provide the sentence
