"<span>B. Its labor system remained undisturbed" is very much not true. Almost the entire labor system of the South depended on slavery, which was abolished during the war. </span>
<span>The answer is a Ziggurat. Sumerian's built massive stepped towers on which were built temples dedicated to the chief god or goddess of a Sumerian city. One example of an ziggurat is the Marduk ziggurat, of Etemenanki, from ancient Babylon.</span>
Answer:
Rome was important in the Renaissance for two reasons. First and foremost, ancient Roman learning provided the impetus for new developments in science, art, architecture, and political theory, to name but four fields of study. The rediscovery of the wisdom of the past considerably broadened the horizons of European men, opening up vast new intellectual vistas that had previously lain hidden for centuries. The rediscovery of Roman ideas, in particular, allowed Renaissance men to reconnect with a culture and a heritage long thought to be lost forever.
And that leads us on to the second reason why Rome was so important to the Renaissance. The example of Ancient Rome was a reminder to Italians of the glory that had once been their patrimony. The strength, vitality, and dominance of Rome stood in stark contrast to the weak patchwork of warring states that formed the basis of Renaissance Italy.
Renaissance thinkers like Machiavelli lamented the decline of Italy from the glorious heights it had achieved under the Roman Empire to the appalling depths it had plumbed as a political plaything of hostile foreign forces, most notably France. Rome acted as a reminder of what once had been and could be again; it set before the Italian people an example of what could happen if they set aside their differences and came together as one.
It would be several centuries before such an ideal were realized, but right throughout the Renaissance it continued to exercise a powerful hold on the imaginations of millions of Italians.
D) To help former slaves succeed in post-Civil War America
Maybe it means that there’s a difference between how much land they own or something. It says there was a difference between the amount of land they occupied and the amount of land they couldn’t control. So maybe they didn’t own/have a lot of land but there was a lot of land they couldn’t get to/take over etc. or maybe this situation could be vice versa so they have a ton of land but only a little isn’t “controlled” let me know if this helps sorry if it’s confusing I’m just guessing based on the context clues :)
