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
maxonik [38]
3 years ago
5

Briefly describe ONE major difference between Potters and Holts historical interpretation of the Civil War.

History
1 answer:
lakkis [162]3 years ago
4 0
<h2><u>Answer:</u></h2>

Potter's Historical Interpretations of the Civil War:  

Students of history state that he had a lopsided scholarly history, since he offered a dimension of tolerance to the genius bondage philosophies that he doesn't grant to the abolitionist subjugation development. Abolitionists were everything from oppressive to helpful people, as per Potter.  

Holt's Historical Interpretation of the Civil War:

Holt, then again, was a teacher so he given an increasingly clear translation of the Civil War, indeed, Holt sees the contention as a breakdown in America's majority rule political procedure. No longer contrasts must be settled inside the field of fight, as per him.

You might be interested in
Citizenship in a modern democracy requires personal investment and active participation to keep the nation responsive to the nee
Arlecino [84]
Some ways of getting involved are:
-voting (here for the experience, ask yourself if you have the right to vote? does your family vote? your friends?

-participating in political campaigns (do you know anyway that participated in a campaign? You can also do it unofficially, for example even by posting Facebook posts about a candidate!)

-belonging to a party - do you know anyone in a political party?

The question asks about your personal experience so I can only give you tips how to answer this about yourself!
<span />
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following was not found at catal huyuk?
prohojiy [21]
Gold reserves  cuz it was not theire   so ya  the other aswers are wrong
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How much force is needed to move a 30 kg mass at an acceleration of 2m / ².
Lubov Fominskaja [6]

Answer:

if 2m/s^2= 2into2=4kg

Explanation:

okkk

3 0
3 years ago
A group of American leaders representing the colonies
love history [14]
The answer is the Continental Congress who reported to KGIII
5 0
3 years ago
The decades around the year 50 BC saw the end of the Roman Republic, and the rise of the Roman Empire. What factors led to the d
dem82 [27]

The aristocracy (wealthy class) dominated the early Roman Republic. In Roman society, the aristocrats were known as patricians. The highest positions in the government were held by two consuls, or leaders, who ruled the Roman Republic. A senate composed of patricians elected these consuls. At this time, lower-class citizens, or plebeians, had virtually no say in the government. Both men and women were citizens in the Roman Republic, but only men could vote.

Tradition dictated that patricians and plebeians should be strictly separated; marriage between the two classes was even prohibited. Over time, the plebeians elected their own representatives, called tribunes, who gained the power to veto measures passed by the senate.

Gradually, the plebeians obtained even more power and eventually could hold the position of consul. Despite these changes, though, the patricians were still able to use their wealth to buy control and influence over elected leaders.

The Roman Senate

The history of the Roman Senate goes as far back as the history of Rome itself. It was first created as a 100-member advisory group for the Roman kings. Later kings expanded the group to 300 members. When the kings were expelled from Rome and the Republic was formed, the Senate became the most powerful governing body. Instead of advising the head of state, it elected the chief executives, called consuls.

Senators were, for centuries, strictly from the patrician class. They practiced the skills of rhetoric and oratory to persuade other members of the ruling body. The Senate convened and passed laws in the curia, a large building on the grounds of the Roman Forum. Much later, Julius Caesar built a larger curia for an expanded Senate.

By the 3rd century B.C.E., Rome had conquered vast territories, and the powerful senators sent armies, negotiated terms of treaties, and had total control over the financial matters of the Republic.

Senatorial control was eventually challenged by Dictator Sulla around 82 B.C.E. Sulla had hundreds of senators murdered, increased the Senate's membership to 600, and installed many nonpatricians as senators. Julius Caesar raised the number to 900 (it was reduced after his assassination). After the creation of the Roman Empire in 27 B.C.E., the Senate became weakened under strong emperors who often forcefully coerced this ruling body. Although it survived until the fall of Rome, the Roman Senate had become merely a ceremonial body of wealthy, intelligent men with no power to rule.

Occasionally, an emergency situation (such as a war) arose that required the decisive leadership of one individual. Under these circumstances, the Senate and the consuls could appoint a temporary dictator to rule for a limited time until the crisis was resolved. The position of dictator was very undemocratic in nature. Indeed, a dictator had all the power, made decisions without any approval, and had full control over the military.

The best example of an ideal dictator was a Roman citizen named Cincinnatus. During a severe military emergency, the Roman Senate called Cincinnatus from his farm to serve as dictator and to lead the Roman army. When Cincinnatus stepped down from the dictatorship and returned to his farm only 15 days after he successfully defeated Rome's enemies, the republican leaders resumed control over Rome.

The early Roman Republic often found itself in a state of constant warfare with its surrounding neighbors. In one instance, when the Romans were fighting the Carthaginians, Rome was nearly conquered. The people of Carthage (a city in what is today Tunisia in north Africa) were a successful trading civilization whose interests began to conflict with those of the Romans.

The two sides fought three bloody wars, known as the Punic Wars (264-146 B.C.E.), over the control of trade in the western Mediterranean Sea. In the second war, Hannibal, a Carthaginian general, successfully invaded Italy by leading an army — complete with elephants — across the Alps. He handed the Roman army a crushing defeat but was unable to sack the city of Rome itself. After occupying and ravaging Italy for more than a decade, Hannibal was finally defeated by the Roman general Scipio at the Battle of Zama in 202 B.C.E. Hope You Like My Answer!:)


3 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of the following describes the French Revolution
    13·1 answer
  • What major event prompted fdr's declaration of war against japan and germany?
    5·2 answers
  • Why was building the aswan dam was a good idea?
    12·1 answer
  • If the president and vice president die who becomes president, then who is the next in line as the executive of the country
    13·2 answers
  • What waa president hoovers fear about deficit spending?
    9·1 answer
  • describe one political effect of industrialization in nineteenth century europe Ap euro pls answer me:)
    10·1 answer
  • What is something that happened as countries in the Communist Bloc started rejecting communism?
    14·1 answer
  • To address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, delegates to the Constitutional Convention agreed to
    11·2 answers
  • Read the poem. A Poison Tree by William Blake I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my
    6·1 answer
  • Why was James Madison’s contribution to the Constitution unexpected?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!