Answer:
Hi, I'm working on this right now, but I'll let you know the answer as soon as I finish the 4.12 unit test.
Edit: Here you go!
Explanation:
The correct answer would be : C. People's point of view can change to suit changes in historical context
The conclusion that U.S attitudes toward panama canal during the 20th century support the opinion that people's point of view can change depending on the historical context
hope this helps
Answer:
A. commander-in-chief of the military.
Explanation:
The Emancipation Proclamation was issued mainly as a directive for the Union Army, so it was basically military in its character. It affected only slaves living in the rebel states of the Confederacy, not those living in slave-states that had remained loyal to the Union. But I think President Abraham Lincoln acted in different capacities at the same time, they can´t be unlinked. Besides being the US armed forces commander-in-chief, he was the chief executive of government.
Answer:
d
Explanation:
they weret alowed to fight in the war
1. The character is uncle sam, the representation of the United States in human form.
2. The man symbolizes the United States gradually becoming more of a world power, both internally and externally (socially and by show of force).
3. The artist isn't exactly trying to prove a point. Instead the author just wants to visualize the US expansion up until the 20th century, making the man bigger and bigger the more territory is gained.
4. The result is that the United States has come from being nothing but a rebellious colony to a recognized world power, but not exactly THE world power. It has become wealthy because of the land it possesses, such as the Eastern U..S (trade & massive industrial space), the panama canal (maritime control), and the western U.S. (trade with China and Japan, gold).
5. Based just on how the look of Uncle Sam progresses, it seems the author is against U.S. imperialism to some extent. Some could perceive Uncle Sam as looking like the typical greedy tycoon who only cares about wealth and power rather than the well being of those under him.
