Andrew Johnson was the 17th POTUS
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Unfortunately, you do not specify a specific topic to develop the argument. An argument about what?
What is your compelling question? We cannot cite evidence of your research because you did not mention what is the topic of your research.
If we can help with something, we are going to set our own example based on our own topic.
How about the following.
Compelling question:
Was the Revolutionary War the last option for Patriots to get Independence from Great Britain?
Argument/Evidence:
1.- Yes, it was the only option after the number of aggressions and aggravations from the British crown. The English government never had the "openness" to negotiate another valid solution.
2.- Colonists were sick and tired of the heavy taxation imposed by the English government. We are talking about injust taxation such as the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Act, the Townshend Act, or the Tea Act.
3.- The worst part of it was that colonists had to pay those taxations but they did not have a voice in the British Parliament.
B and C I think
A voters poll tax
A required literacy test
The correct answer is <span>C) desired reconciliation and peace between the North and South and a smooth transition back into the Union.
He explains this through the example that the Union would provide help and care for both those who fought against it and for the families of the soldiers that died during the war, which included southerners. He wanted reconciliation between the two factions. </span>
Yes I think that each side has good things to say about the other side. This is because I think that many people's political viewpoints don't always perfectly align to one party or the other. In reality, life is much more complicated than picking one side. Sure some people might agree with policies from the Democrat's side, but they might see other Republican views to be valid as well. I like to think of it as a buffet of ideas, where people tend to pick and choose which talking points they magnetically snap to. We could have for example a socially liberal person but who supports conservative financial measures; or we could have someone who has very religious conservative morals, but supports liberal monetary policies.
In other words, it's unrealistic to assume people will be purely one party. Those who seem that way tend to be stuck in a bubble where it's like a feedback loop of talking points fed to them. Fox News is one example of this on the conservative side, while MSNBC is an example of this on the liberal side. Those stuck in this bubble would likely not have much nice things to say about the other side, if they have anything nice to say at all. However, I think to some (if not many) people, politics has become very toxic that they simply turn the tv off entirely. By "turn off", I mean literally turn it off or change the channel to something else. These people I'd consider somewhere in the middle in a moderate range. Furthermore, these moderates are likely to have some nice things to say about both sides, but they might have their complaints about both sides as well.
In short, if you pick someone from either extreme, then it's likely they'll have nothing nice to say about the other side. If you pick someone from the middle, then they might have nice things to say about both sides. It all depends who you ask. Also, it depends on how politically active they are.
