I am confused what is your question
James K Polk is one of the historical figures that is really hard to judge by modern standards.
He was a forceful man with strongly held beliefs. He was the last in the line of "Jacksonian Presidents" with all of the baggage that came along with that.
Ultimately, he was a strong war time President. His single term in office led to the short lived Presidency of Zachary Taylor, who was significantly less informed and forceful than Polk. After Polk, the issue of slavery really came to the forefront. Polk was either responsible for delaying the prominence of this issue or just got lucky. It is likely that history would look much differently if Polk had a second term and continued his aggressive posture towards America's future.
I'd say he was a good President, for his time, who strongly acted on the economy and in regards to Mexico but whose record looks abysmal by modern standards and values.
Early historians didn't have the technology modern historians had. So, they had less resources than more modern historians.
<em>A. Keep government records.</em>
Explanation:
Scribes were people in Egypt, who were usually men, who were able to read and write. This was rare for these times, so these people were very important. Scribes would keep attendance of different things, like taxes, government records, crops, and other needed things.
You had to attend school in order to become a scribe, learning to be able to read and write was a privilege. Normally these schools cost money, so people who were scribes normally had a good bit of wealth.
Scribes were very important during this time as they kept track of everything, between medical records to everyday life. Because of these scribes, we know a lot about ancient Egypt and how they developed and lived.
