1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
rosijanka [135]
4 years ago
8

A significant effect of the First Great Awakening was that it

History
2 answers:
marusya05 [52]4 years ago
7 0
One significant effect of the First Great Awakening was that it "<span>c. caused division among religious groups," since there remained a "traditional religious establishment. </span><span />
Roman55 [17]4 years ago
3 0

The correct answer is C. A significant effect of the First Great Awakening was that it caused division among religious groups.

The First Great Awakening was a movement of Christian revitalization that spread through Protestant Europe and the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s, leaving a permanent impact on American religion.

Christianity was carried to African slaves and it was a monumental event in New England that challenged established authority. It incited resentment and division among the old traditionalists, who insisted on the importance of continuing the ritual and doctrine, and the new drivers of rebirth, which encouraged emotional involvement and personal commitment. It had an important impact on the remodeling of the Congregational Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Dutch Reformed Church and the reformed German church and the strengthening of the Baptist and Methodist denominations. It had little impact between the Anglicans and Quakers.

You might be interested in
How does Article I of Michigan’s constitution resemble the US Constitution?
Gala2k [10]
The first article resembles the Bill of Rights. Is that what you are looking for?
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the Treaty of Versailles, after WWI, lead to the beiginning of WWII?
Inessa [10]

Answer:

When Germany signed the armistice ending hostilities in the First World War on November 11, 1918, its leaders believed they were accepting a “peace without victory,” as outlined by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in his famous Fourteen Points. But from the moment the leaders of the victorious Allied nations arrived in France for the peace conference in early 1919, the post-war reality began to diverge sharply from Wilson’s idealistic vision.

Five long months later, on June 28—exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Sarajevo—the leaders of the Allied and associated powers, as well as representatives from Germany, gathered in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles to sign the final treaty. By placing the burden of war guilt entirely on Germany, imposing harsh reparations payments and creating an increasingly unstable collection of smaller nations in Europe, the treaty would ultimately fail to resolve the underlying issues that caused war to break out in 1914, and help pave the way for another massive global conflict 20 years later.

The Paris Peace Conference: None of the defeated nations weighed in, and even the smaller Allied powers had little say.

Formal peace negotiations opened in Paris on January 18, 1919, the anniversary of the coronation of German Emperor Wilhelm I at the end of the Franco-Prussian War in 1871. World War I had brought up painful memories of that conflict—which ended in German unification and its seizure of the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine from France—and now France intended to make Germany pay.

Explanation:

Hope I helped!

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
This is me for the person who said that ain't me welp here u go,
Yakvenalex [24]

Explanation:

............. ️️ ☺️ i just want points thank you

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What happened as agriculture became entrenched in the south ?
MrRa [10]

Entrepreneurs built new factories to meet rising consumer demand.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Opponents of government
ExtremeBDS [4]
Person who opposes another in a contest, battle, etc

2. (Anatomy) anatomy an opponent muscle

adj

3. opposite, as in position

4. (Anatomy) anatomy (of a muscle) bringing two parts into opposition

5. opposing; contrary

[C16: from Latin oppōnere to oppose, from ob- against + pōnere to place]

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Describe how american writers composers and artists broke away from european traditions in the 1920s
    8·1 answer
  • The symbol of the Crusaders was the _____.
    8·2 answers
  • The main two revolutionary parties that first wanted to overthrow the Russian government before 1905 were the _____. Populists R
    12·2 answers
  • Brad lives in a country that is led by a dictator. Since coming to power, the dictator has created many new laws and has placed
    15·2 answers
  • Explain when and how tensions between the superpowers decreased and when and how they increased
    15·1 answer
  • Why do secessionists place so much emphasis on the growth of antislavery public opinion in the north?
    11·1 answer
  • What would be a similarity between the sepoy rebellion in India and the boxer rebellion in china
    11·1 answer
  • Name two reasons why Cortes was able to defeat Montezuma 1._______________________ 2.______________________
    13·2 answers
  • Is this type of thing something that could happen in the modern world? Why or why not?
    14·1 answer
  • Which best describes a Change in Japan since world war 2
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!