Answer:
that they had different opinions
Explanation:
they thought differently so they were arguing about their different opinions
Answer:
winter of 1609-1610, when food shortages, fractured leadership, and a siege by Powhatan Indian warriors killed two of every three colonists at James Fort. From its beginning, the colony struggled to maintaining a food supply.
Explanation:
I kinda remember this from school but also searched it up it would of gaven you the answer as well
George Washington was appointed as the Supreme Commander of the Continental Army was accomplished by members of the Second Continental Congress during their meeting in Philadelphia. Majority rule was the basic aim in a direct democracy.
Delegates from the Thirteen Colonies met at Philadelphia in
1775. The members managed the Colonial war effort. They gradually moved towards
independence. On July 4, 1776 they adopted the United States Declaration of
Independence. The Congress worked as the de facto national government. It
raised armies, directed strategy, appointed diplomats and signed treaties like
the Olive Branch Petition.
Read more on Brainly.in - https://brainly.in/question/1477242#readmore
The Jewish people, since they appear in the history seem to have lot of problems with the other people that lived around them, often being persecuted or enslaved.
Initially they have been enslaved by the Egyptians and were not in nice relations with them, saving themselves by the scratch, but ending up in a desert. After they settled in what is now Israel, they have been conquered by the Assyrians, and since they were rebellious, the Assyrians systemically misplaced them out of their homeland. After that came the Romans, and it was similar, as part of them was again moved forcefully in other places of the empire. The Muslim Caliphates showed no mercy toward them, and they were terrorized and forced to move away. Then they had troubles in Europe as well, especially with the Spanish inquisition where they were burned alive publicly or killed without any mercy.
<u>"confirming that it is not an online source" </u>is wrong. The problem is not the fact the source is online, but if it's credible.
<u>"determining whether or not it is well-known" </u>well-known sources might still be wrong. Being known does not make something true.
<u>"d. determining whether it is a secondary source" </u>again, it has nothing at all to do with the validity of the source.
So the answer is:
b. checking its conclusions against other sources
The best way is to check the source and compare to different ones that talk about the same subject. Comparing different conclusions of different authors and seeing different points of view about the same thing is often the best way.
