a) Abolitionists were everything from abusive to humanitarians, according to Potter. Holt, on the other hand, was a professor so he provided a more lucid interpretation of the Civil War, as a matter of fact, Holt sees the conflict as a breakdown in America's democratic political process.
b) 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.
I'm guessing its because they were not united by religion or ethnicity
No there is not only one way
I want to help you but I genuinely have no clue
Communism
This is an example of central planning in which everything is directed by the government. These types of economies tend not to do well because as the question states the incentive for individuals is taken away.
