1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
MatroZZZ [7]
3 years ago
10

Which two groups were involved in the confederation known as the bleeding Kansas

History
2 answers:
Black_prince [1.1K]3 years ago
7 0
I think the Pro-Slavery and The Anti-Slavery
Montano1993 [528]3 years ago
7 0
The two groups were t<span>he Pro-slavery and free-soil settlers since they could never get along with each other, violence began to break out between the two groups.

I hope this helped :)</span>
You might be interested in
¿Qué diferencia existe y cómo se relacionan: macrosistemas, sistemas y subsistemas?
masya89 [10]

Answer:

solo te puedo ayudar con sistemas y subsistemas

Explanation:

se entiende por un sistema a un conjunto ordenado de componentes relacionados entre si, ya se trate de elementos materiales o conceptuales.

subsistema: en si, es un sistema que se ejecuta sobre otro sistema ayudandolo en sus funciones.

5 0
3 years ago
Congress uses ________ boundaries to help define federal judicial districts.
vlada-n [284]
The answer would be C. State
7 0
3 years ago
List the factors which brought The first world War?​
yanalaym [24]

1. Friends don’t let friends fight alone

A tangled web of strong political alliances among nations meant that most great powers felt obliged to help their partners once war was declared.

After the murder of an Austrian Archduke by Serbian assassins, Austria-Hungary prepared for war against Serbia, which was allied with Russia.

Once Russia mobilized, Austria-Hungary’s ally, Germany, declared war on both Russia and Russia’s ally, France. Great Britain and its empire, sympathetic to France, declared war on Germany (Canada was not consulted).

Alliances originally intended as defensive pacts ended up looking threatening to outsiders. This perilous network of allegiances is an accepted part of all narratives about the First World War. German historian Andreas Hilgruber was one of many who showed how dangerous and costly all of these alliances were.

2. Armed to the teeth

Europe in 1914 was armed to the teeth. Vast fleets of warships were being constructed, conscription was implemented in most of the great powers to allow large armies to be kept in reserve, weapons and ammunition were stockpiled, and detailed war plans were made.

The impact of the proliferation of the instruments of war as a cause of the outbreak of the conflict was highlighted by David Stevenson’s Armaments and the Coming of War (1996). A large army spoiling for a fight may well seek one out.

3. Capitalist imperialism

During the First World War, Vladimir Lenin, the father of the Soviet Union, wrote an essay entitled Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), in which he laid out the foundation of his own philosophy of communism.

He believed that the war was the product of capitalist financial monopolies within states, which created national rivalries and led the great powers into a destructive conflict over access to raw materials and undeveloped markets.

Others since have blamed imperialism itself and commercial interests.

4. War on a tight schedule

A.J.P. Taylor, one of the 20th century’s great historians, argued in War by Timetable (1969) that in 1914, thanks to relatively new transportation (railroad) and communications (telegraph and telephone) technologies, every European power believed that the ability to mobilize their armies faster than their neighbours would by itself deter war.

Every power drafted elaborate mobilization timetables so that they could outrace their potential opponents. When the crisis of 1914 occurred, none of the leaders really wanted war, according to Taylor, but each felt they had to mobilize faster than the others or lose the advantage.

They became the victims of their own logistical preparations, and Europe slid unwillingly but relentlessly into war. Barbara Tuchman’s book The Guns of August (1962) similarly identified the dangers of technology in causing conflicts to escalate rapidly.

5. Blame Germany

In the Treaty of Versailles that officially ended the war, Germany was made to accept the blame for causing the conflict, and after that German governments spent decades denying their sole responsibility.

They convinced many people, but after the Second World War, German historian Fritz Fischer looked into previously-classified archives for the first time. Fischer concluded in his book German War Aims in the First World War (1961) that Imperial Germany had deliberately provoked a general war as part of a policy of conquest much like that undertaken by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany 20 years later.

Fischer’s conclusions remain controversial to this day.

6. No, blame Britain

The idea that Britain caused the war was the live grenade that firebrand historian Niall Ferguson lobbed into the debate when he wrote The Pity of War (1999), though Paul Schroeder had put forward a similar argument earlier.

Ferguson claimed that not only did British statesmen encourage France and Russia to oppose Germany, but that Britain’s own intervention turned a regional European brawl into a global war.

The British may not have directly started it, according to Ferguson, but they were liable for greatly expanding the scope of the war and making it drag on as long as it did.

7. People being people

Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan has published a major book, The War That Ended Peace (2013), which presents a synthesis of many different factors: alliances and power politics; reckless diplomacy; ethnic nationalism; and, most of all, the personal character and relationships of the almost uncountable number of historical figures who had a hand in the coming of war.

Her work helps to highlight the fact that for all the great and powerful forces that seemed to grind the world inexorably into war in 1914, everything ultimately came down to the beliefs, prejudices, rivalries, and schemes of a great array of personalities and people.

3 0
4 years ago
Helppp mark you Brainliest
Ksenya-84 [330]

Answer:

first is true

second is false

Explanation:

5 0
3 years ago
Pls answer asapppp it’s a test hehe <br> I don’t wanna go back to in person school
Vladimir79 [104]

Answer:

D

Explanation:

they are all talking about why they want to colinize america hope its right :)

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • What power does the Constitution give the president to act without Congress? (Select all that apply.)
    9·2 answers
  • How did the geography of Southeast Asia affects the cities region and populations?
    12·1 answer
  • Which statement reflects similarities between Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie?
    8·2 answers
  • Which group had conflicts with silver miners over land and water rights?
    15·2 answers
  • Which new deal program still helps retirees, dependent mothers and children and disabled people
    5·1 answer
  • Which native american tribe signed a treaty to leave their land voluntarily?
    6·1 answer
  • What was the motivation behind Confederate troops attacking the Port of Galveston in January 1863?
    5·1 answer
  • HELP PLEASE ITS A TEST AND DUO TODAY, {help with both questions
    10·1 answer
  • Why is Mecca's location good for trade?​
    10·2 answers
  • Luis was a scapegoat for his boss who embezzled funds from investors. What did Luis do?
    12·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!