The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although the previous link was not attached, we can say the following.
The central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source are the following,
A primary resource comes from the people who witnessed the event, the incident, or the specific moment. These people could have written their own descriptions, testimonies, books, or maybe journalists that directly reported what happened. It also could be an interview with people who were part of the historical event. For instance, if it is a soldier that participated in the Vietnam War, a journalist can interview him and use it as a primary source.
On the other hand, secondary sources can be obtained from other sources that were not direct. This could be an author that based its story in other investigations, or it could be encyclopedias.
For the answer to the question above.
The best answer I can give is letter B.
During the civil war, there was also a competition in the global market on the supply of cotton so Europe sought other suppliers from India and Egypt and this is why the price is down after 1865
The precedent that Washington and Congress made was to have cabinet meetings with their top advisers.
Hope this helps!
-Payshence
<span>B) They were afraid of retaliation from free African Americans.</span>
Answer:Machiavelli’s realism
Niccolò Machiavelli, whose work derived from sources as authentically humanistic as those of Ficino, proceeded along a wholly opposite course. A throwback to the chancellor-humanists Salutati, Bruni, and Poggio, he served Florence in a similar capacity and with equal fidelity, using his erudition and eloquence in a civic cause. Like Vittorino and other early humanists, he believed in the centrality of historical studies, and he performed a signally humanistic function by creating, in La mandragola (1518; The Mandrake), the first vernacular imitation of Roman comedy. His unswerving concentration on human weakness and institutional corruption suggests the influence of Boccaccio; and, like Boccaccio, he used these reminders less as topical satire than as practical gauges of human nature. In one way at least, Machiavelli is more humanistic (i.e., closer to the classics) than the other humanists, for while Vittorino and his school ransacked history for examples of virtue, Machiavelli (true to the spirit of Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, and Tacitus) embraced all of history—good, evil, and indifferent—as his school of reality. Like Salutati, though perhaps with greater self-awareness, Machiavelli was ambiguous as to the relative merits of republics and monarchies. In both public and private writings—especially the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (1531; Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy)—he showed a marked preference for republican government, but in The Prince (1532) he developed, with apparent approval, a model of radical autocracy. For this reason, his goals have remained unclear.
Explanation:
