Answer:
1) Pardons would be granted to those taking a loyalty oath
2)No pardons would be available to high Confederate officials
and persons owning property valued in excess of $20,000
3)A state needed to abolish slavery before being readmitted
4)A state was required to repeal its secession ordinance before
being readmitted.
5)High Confederate officials and military leaders were to be
temporarily excluded from the process
6)When one tenth of the number of voters who had participated
in the 1860 election had taken the oath within a particular state,
then that state could launch a new government and elect
representatives to Congress.
It was both a failure and a success
Answer: A. Jesus had his claim rejected by the Jewish religious authorities.
Explanation: Jesus believed that he was sent from God to redeem the chosen people for their sins. He spoke for himself that he was the son of God, the Messiah who, according to the Old Testament, was to come and save people from misery and slavery. The Jews believed in the coming of the Messiah, and though some believed that Jesus was the Messiah, such as his disciples and many others whom Jesus helped, cured, etc., the official representatives of Judaism, i.e. religious leaders, rejected it with indignation, as the Christ's entire teaching. They considered that Christ's claim that he was the Messiah was a great sin, and that he was condemned to crucifixion, and his followers, the Christians, were labelled as a sect and fiercely persecuted.
Maybe when they work in the field
Answer: Political compromise is difficult in American democracy even though no one doubts it is necessary. It is difficult for many reasons, including the recent increase in political polarization that has been widely criticized. We argue that the resistance to compromise cannot be fully appreciated without understanding its source in the democratic process itself, especially as conducted in the U.S. The incursion of campaigning into governing in American democracy--the so called "permanent campaign"--encourages political attitudes and arguments that make compromise more difficult. These constitute what we call the uncompromising mindset, characterized by politicians' standing on principle and mistrusting opponents. This mindset is conducive to campaigning, but not to governing, because it stands in the way of necessary change and thereby biases the democratic process in favor of the status quo. The uncompromising mindset can be kept in check by an opposite cluster of attitudes and arguments--the compromising mindset--that inclines politicians to adapt their principles and respect their opponents. This mindset is more appropriate for governing, because it enables politicians more readily to recognize and act on opportunities for desirable compromise. We explore the dynamics of these mindsets by examining the processes that led to the compromises on tax reform in 1986 and health care reform in 2010.
Explanation:
