The correct answer is (C) Thaddeus Stevens.
<h3>Who was Thaddeus Stevens.</h3>
From Pennsylvania, Thaddeus Stevens served in the US House of Representatives.
Thaddeus Stevens was a key figure in the Republican Party's Radical Republican movement in the 1860s.
Stevens, a fervent opponent of slavery and prejudice against black Americans, spearheaded the resistance to American President Andrew Johnson during Reconstruction in an effort to guarantee their rights.
Thaddeus Stevens played a key role as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee during the American Civil War, concentrating on the defeat of the Confederacy, raising money through new taxes and borrowing, destroying the influence of slave owners, putting an end to slavery, and securing equal rights for freedmen.
To know more about Thaddeus Stevens click here:
brainly.com/question/23977677
#SPJ4
In the Biblical sense there is a difference, although I have seen heated debates on this question even among Christians. Most ancient languages have two words for these "entities". In the Hungarian Bible translations usually the same word is used for both as in the time of the first Hungarian Bible translation there was no Hungarian word for "spirit" - it was created on in the 18th century. This caused a lot of confusion. In Greek you have psyche and pneuma, in Hebrew you have nefesh and ruach - you can find a lot of discussion on the difference. Here I put very briefly my rudimentary idea about this. I do not believe that there are three substances: matter soul and spirit. My impression is that the soul is a kind of "interface" between spirit and matter (at least in a certain sense). Theologians will explain it more precisely. Nevertheless soul is the center of the conscious self where decisions are made (soul = life in the New Testament). There are several other aspects which I would comment - but I am not sure whether your question is intended in this direction.
<span>How did the Russians defeat both Hitler and Napoleon?
</span>
<span>First
off, they started pretty well. When the Germans first invaded, the
people thought they were being liberated (tells you a lot about the
government at the time) and were treated pretty well. But then they
started killing people and things went downhill. Now, Hitler had this
grand idea to take over Stalingrad (mostly for its namesake, Stalin). He
thought it would be a massive blow to the Russian morale. But instead
of basing his military strageties on logic, he did on feelings (he
wanted to beat Stalin); which is never a good thing. Unforunately, he
didn't anticipate Russian winter (which, luckily for the Russians, came
early that year and ironically the same year for Napoleon). So the
German army was stuck in Summer gear, rather then the proper Winter gear
(which was promised but never came through). AND look at Russia as a
whole: It's a huge country (I heard it takes around 8-10 days to just
get through Russia straight across). Now, to the other guy above me.
Russia isn't known for having the strongest armies ever. Actually,
compared to the Germans they were undisclipined, untrained and from all
types of backgrounds, and all ages, etc. Hardly sounds like an ideal
army. But the Russian people were stubborn and burned everything, so in
that way the German army failed. Plus, Russia had an endless supply of
men. Hitler was shocked to notice, there was always a fresh supply of
men waiting to fight.
So in conclusion, Russia's massive land(s) and brutal winters
contributed to both the fails of Napoleon and Hitler's conquer of
Russia. </span>
King John saw the Magna Carta as a peace treaty between he and his barons that guaranteed King John would respect Feudal rights and privileges, uphold the freedom of the church, and maintain the nations laws.
