The answer would be A, a document made by someone who actually saw an event. A primary source is considered to be the most reliable account of an event.
Of course, John D. Rockefeller lost a little money during the Great Depression but he was still a billionaire. He had stock and other assets which lost value but he held on to them until they recovered their value.
<span>John D. Rockefeller is an interesting person. He could compartmentalize business and personal like a mobster. He was absolutely ruthless in business. He drove competitors out of business with unfair practices like demanding kick-backs from railroads. One competitor he put out of business was affiliated with one of his brothers. That brother never talked to John D ever again. John D's son was to take over his business, but when he saw the tactics regularly employed, he begged off. </span>
<span>But personally, John D was quite generous. He would carry around a roll of dimes and hand the coins to everyone he met. Also, the Rockefellers were quite frugal. One of John D's other brothers worked with him and he became rich but obviously not nearly as rich. That brother led a more opulent life style than John D and his family. The Rockefellers should say things like "We're not the Vanderbilts" when in fact the Rockefellers had much more money than the Vanderbilts or anyone else. </span>
<span>But all in all, due to his business practices, I would have to say that John D. Rockefeller was an odious character.</span>
(1954) Brown v.s. Board of Education
It was a change of thinking from 1500 to 1700 when modern science came out as a new was of getting knowledge about the world. It was important because it started modern science.
Answer:
Explanation:The dawn of the twentieth century found the region between Kansas and Texas in transition. Once set aside as a permanent home for indigenous and uprooted American Indians, almost two million acres of Indian Territory had been opened to settlement in 1889. Joined with a strip of land above the Texas Panhandle, the two areas were designated "Oklahoma Territory" by an act of Congress the following year. Subsequent additions of land surrendered by tribal governments increased the new territory until it was roughly equal in size to the diminished Indian Territory. Land was the universal attraction, but many white pioneers who rushed into Oklahoma Territory or settled in Indian Territory hoped for a fresh start in a new Eden not dominated by wealth and corporate power. Freedmen dreamed of a new beginning in a place of social justice where rights guaranteed by the Constitution would be respected. Most Native Americans, whose land was being occupied, had come to realize the futility of their opposition to the process that would soon unite the two territories into a single state. A few Indians, most wedded to tribal traditions, simply ignored a process they could not understand and refused to participate in an allotment of land they had once been promised would be theirs "forever."
The birth of the new state occurred in an era of protest and reform. Populist and Progressive currents merged to sweep reform-minded Democrats to an overwhelming victory in 1906 in the selection of delegates to a Constitutional Convention tasked with forging Indian and Oklahoma territories and the Osage Nation into a single state. The constitution drafted at the convention in Guthrie in 1906–07 was not as "radical" as Pres. Theodore Roosevelt suggested, but it did reflect its authors' belief that the will of the people, not powerful corporations, should determine state policy. A series of provisions, including a corporation commission, popular election of many state officials, initiative and referendum, preferential balloting for U.S. senators, a single term for the governor, a weak legislature, and inclusion of details in the constitution normally enacted by statute, reflected the founding fathers' conviction that corporate influence on state government should be held in check.
