Answer:
nativist
Explanation:
process of elimination a nativist is someone who supports their native people
He turned everything into gold including his daughter
Axis would have probably wiped out most of its West-European enemies. Canada would probably have tried to fight against America and failed, getting its armies crushed, or stayed on the defensive. Hitler would probably have had more troops and peace of mind tromping around around the Soviet grounds, and would have lost a lot less manpower than when the US actually went to war in the real WWII. Since I'm assuming that in this hypothetical scenario, the US was allied with Japan, Pearl Harbor never happened. Japan and America would both have undisputed hold of the Pacific, with America's (unsunken) battleships and aircraft carriers along with Japanese suprbattleships like the Yamato, and dual force garrisons on the pacific islands. America might have invaded the lower Americas as well, if it didn't stop at securing the border. Mexico might have joined in to help the Axis powers. Then Hitler would still turn on Stalin, still loose an ungodly portion of his army in Russia, get driven back, and start losing the war in the European theatre, at least until axis forces come to back him up, primarily in the form of American Axis soldiers. Then America would lose many men in the Russian front, until it finally invaded Russia somehow (probably after many years and the combined nuclear armaments research being conducted by the US and Nazi Germany.) After invading Russia, Hitler will grow pompous and attempt to invade America with his already weakened force. He would attempt to destroy the remaining American troops in the European/Asian Theatre. America and Japan would probably ally with each other to maintain their hold of the Pacific, and fight back, with a smaller scale D-Day happening (Only made up of Americans) being launched from the invaded and annexed New American Britain or New German Britain or whatever. America would invade Germany, while Germany cannot invade America (see other Quora posts for explanations on why it is virtually impossible to invade America). America ends up with territories and troops spread all across the Pacific, Africa, Russia, Europe, and Asia, with probably troops in Canada and Mexico as well. Consequently, the troops will be brought down through the freedom fighters and rebellions that will ultimately pop up. Hitler shoots himself in the bunker as well.
Lots of bloodshed. Thank god it didn't happen this way! A lot of countries would be utterly in ruins after this version of the World War, not just Poland and Germany and England and Russia and Korea and China (etc.), but who knows how many more countless places. Not to say that I am okay with WWII happening how it did anyway, since it was extremely bloody as well, but... the real WWII was a giant bloody clash of death. This hypothetical one wouldn't have been a clash. It would have been a giant cluster that resulted in possibly twice or three times as many deaths, mostly more civilian deaths in general.
for the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. Instead of forging a compromise between Radical Republicans and moderates, his actions united the opposition against him. His bullheaded opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated all hope of using presidential authority to affect further compromises favorable to his position. In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.
Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well. Johnson's decision to support the return of the prewar social and economic system—except for slavery—cut short any hope of a redistribution of land to the freed people or a more far-reaching reform program in the South.
Historians naturally wonder what might have happened had Lincoln, a genius at political compromise and perhaps the most effective leader to ever serve as President, lived. Would African Americans have obtained more effective guarantees of their civil rights? Would Lincoln have better completed what one historian calls the "unfinished revolution" in racial justice and equality begun by the Civil War? Almost all historians believe that the outcome would have been far different under Lincoln's leadership.
Among historians, supporters of Johnson are few in recent years. However, from the 1870s to around the time of World War II, Johnson enjoyed high regard as a strong-willed President who took the courageous high ground in challenging Congress's unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority. In this view, much out of vogue today, Johnson is seen to have been motivated by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and by a firm belief in the separation of powers. This perspective reflected a generation of historians who were critical of Republican policy and skeptical of the viability of racial equality as a national policy. Even here, however, apologists for Johnson acknowledge his inability to effectively deal with congressional challenges due to his personal limitations as a leader.
Answer: C. Radical Republicans were less willing to allow former Confederates to participate in government.
Explanation:
Radical Republicans were so called because they advocated radical policies based on the socio-political landscape at the time in calling for an immediate, permanent and uncompensated end to slavery.
They were very opposed to former Confederates such as officers and politicians joining Congress or any other form of government so as not to give them the chance to implement confederate policies.
