The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
Were the British justified in burning down the Senate building and White House as military targets or was it a totally unnecessary crime?
From the perspective of the British troops, the burning down of the White House was justified because the British knew that Washington was the center and a strategic place for the Americans. The British knew that these actions would diminish the morale of the inexperienced Army of the new nation.
The Senate and the White House had symbolic importance in the strategy of the British Army and their burning was seen as a key decision to capture the region.
Some authors and historians refer to the concept of total war, in which destroying the resources of the enemy are vital so they cannot use them to regroup.
This was not the case, but the British knew that they could hit hard on key public buildings in Washington D.C., trying to get a considerable advantage of this city and its connection to the River and its closeness to the coast.
Explanation:
The surprise attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton resulted in an important victory and a morale boost for the colonial troops. You're welcome !
Answer:
Bonding (odyssey ware)
Explanation:
well, all the other answers that were given didn't make sense to the question and the definition didn't match either but the answer bonding is good because they're spending time with each other gettiing to know each other.
