a) Abolitionists were everything from abusive to humanitarians, according to Potter. Holt, on the other hand, was a professor so he provided a more lucid interpretation of the Civil War, as a matter of fact, Holt sees the conflict as a breakdown in America's democratic political process.
b) Potter's Historical Interpretations of the Civil War:
Students of history state that he had a lopsided scholarly history, since he offered a dimension of tolerance to the genius bondage philosophies that he doesn't grant to the abolitionist subjugation development. Abolitionists were everything from oppressive to helpful people, as per Potter.
Holt's Historical Interpretation of the Civil War:
Holt, then again, was a teacher so he given an increasingly clear translation of the Civil War, indeed, Holt sees the contention as a breakdown in America's majority rule political procedure. No longer contrasts must be settled inside the field of fight, as per him.
think monroe doctrine
US benefits from Latin American agriculture without colonization
The correct answer is war
In a way it is logical to think that the combination of militarism and imperialism leads to war, because the dispute for new territories and militarism in those territories leads to war.
<u>Militarism</u> is the name given to a philosophy that is favorable to the preponderance of the military element in the political and administrative life of a nation. It is the expansion of military practices for the political and social life of a nation.
<u>
Imperialism</u> consists of a policy of expansion and the territorial, cultural and economic dominance of one nation over others.
From this perspective, powerful states seek to extend and maintain their control or influence over weaker peoples or nations.
Answer:
the second one "both were part of a larger effort..."
Answer:
Two leaders elected to run the city of Rome.
Explanation:
