a. ONE major difference between Potter's and Holt's historical interpretations of the Civil War is that David M. Potter described the Civil War as an inevitable event given the institutionalized sectionalism between the North and the South. On the other hand, Michael F. Holt held that the Civil War was an anomaly in American compromise-reaching political tradition.
b. ONE specific historical event or development during 1786-1861 that could support Potter's interpretation is the breakdown of the two-party system. This development pitted far-right democratic republicanism, which promoted white supremacy, whereas center-right republicanism accepted black equality.
Another historical development to support Potter's interpretation is that the South welcomed the Jim Crow laws and sanctioned the separation principle. On the other hand, the North sought to overturn the law and practice of separatism.
c) According to Holt, the Civil War is ONE specific historical event that proved that America broke with its tradition of compromise. During the Great Compromise of 1787, healthy rivalry ensued between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Thus, David M. Potter held that the ingrained divisions between the North and the South caused the Civil War, while Michael F. Holt held that the breakdown of the two-party system occasioned the Civil War.
Learn more about the different historical interpretations of the Civil War here: brainly.com/question/11705791
I would like to talk too but this question is your opinion not really a question question you know
Answer:
i think it would be pakistan...
Explanation:
Answer:The treaty added an additional 525,000 square miles to United States territory, including the land that makes up all or parts of present-day Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Mexico also gave up all claims to Texas and recognized the Rio Grande as America's southern boundary.
Explanation:
this is copied and pasted just so you know...
Answer:
decide if an action is constitutional
