A source contains a soldier’s description of a battle. What kind of source is it?

History

2 answers:

VMariaS [17]3 years ago

8 0

Answer:

option A

Explanation:

the correct answer is option A

A soldier's description of a battle by a secondary source will be different from the original scenario.

It can be affected by the personal point of view because the secondary person does not have experienced the exact situation of the war.

He can imagine something else other than what exactly the situation took place.

Alex17521 [72]3 years ago

5 0

A secondary source is a description coming from someone who wasn't there and didn't truly experience the event. Since the source contains a soldier's description rather than the soldier writing it him/herself The source is a secondary source. Now since the source obtained it directly from the soldier the source be A. a secondary source with an understandable point of view.

You might be interested in

When did Dred Scott sue for freedom for himself and his family?

Llana [10]

Answer: C

Explanation: Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott case". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

describe the different views between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist regarding the Constitution and its ratification. needs t

jasenka [17]

Antifederalist saw the Constitution as a way for the Federalist to gain more control over the states. This was seen as the opposite for the Federalist Party because they just wanted to create a central government that was strong enough to run the whole country. The Antifederalist Party was totally against the ratification because they were afraid that the national government would become too powerful and take advantage of their power. The Federalist Party was for the Constitution because they saw it as a way for the people to get more involved in the government since the most powerful branch would be directly linked to the people. Lastly, the Antifederalists saw the Constitution as a way to take the power of the states away while the Federalists interpreted the Constitution as a way for the states and the national government to have similar powers that still allow the national government to handle national affairs rather than having the states do it.

8 0

3 years ago

What did the spoils system refer to?

Leya [2.2K]

The spoils system referred to:

<u>B. the appointment of friends and political supporters to government positions</u>

The spoils system refers to a system where political appointments are made as a favor or payback to the friends and supporters of a politician when he is appointed in public office.

As a result of this, the people who are appointed may not always be qualified for a particular position, so it is not based on meritocracy, but rather as a favor to them.

Therefore, the correct answer is option B