1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Nikitich [7]
3 years ago
5

What it Abraham Lincoln had not been killed by John Wilkes Booth? How would

History
1 answer:
stira [4]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

If President Lincoln hadn't been assassinated, I believe that Reconstruction and the post-war era would have been more historically positive and ambitious. I think Lincoln would have achieved more things politically and socially for America, and would have done more to fight against many injustices in this country. Andrew Johnson did not have a positive presidency, says his impeachment. Lincoln had plans, but Andrew Johnson created policies and actions that went against the Republican Party and angered many, like his pardoning of Southerners. Lincoln would have continued to be a great figure for his party and I believe would have provided more as leadership than Johnson. If he was not assassinated, I believe that Lincoln would have continued his legacy and his fight for justice in America.

You might be interested in
Mark the item if the person was a great Enlightenment thinker whose political ideas helped inspire the American Revolution.
vlada-n [284]

John locke, Thomas Jefferson and John Newton

5 0
4 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why does John Greene say that Mussolini, Hitler and Hirohito represent the worst in nationalism
Gekata [30.6K]

Answer: it's because they tried to eliminate difference in the efforts to create a homogeneous mythologized unitary polity

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What was one difference between the maya and aztec governments
Vitek1552 [10]
The Aztec empire was ruled by one ruler where the Mayan had rule divided among the different states 
8 0
3 years ago
Compare and contrast the roles of slaves and freemen in the Roman Republic.
Marizza181 [45]

Answer:

1. Roman slavery was not based on race so sometimes it was hard to differ if someone was a slave or not (everyone looked similar).

2. Both roles are pretty similar except for the fact that slaves are forced into labor work and freed men work on their own free will and are treated better.

3. Slaves are abused and treated badly and freemen aren't.

4. Slaves were used in all forms of work except for public office.

5. Often times employed men and slaves would work together except that the free employed men would get paid and the slaves wouldn't (this usually happened when one cannot find enough slaves to work and can only conclude to using paid workers so that's when they end up getting mixed together).

The role of slaves and freemen seem very similar in a lot of aspects (despite the fact that slaves cannot work in public office) but they are ranked by their parents (if your parents are slaves then you're born a slave) and slaves can also be chosen out of something like a battle. If they lose they are taken in as slaves. What I'm trying to say is that freedom was not a right but a privilege for people in the Roman Republic. Things like battles were used to justify and confirm superiority over the losers and gave the winners divine right to rule over the losers (slaves) and treat them badly. At a point the slaves were practically invisible.

Explanation:

ik know i already answer this one but can you give brainlist again

4 0
2 years ago
After World War II, Stalin said that the Soviet Union needed a “buffer zone” to protect it from attack. This idea resulted in th
slega [8]

Answer:  EASTERN EUROPE

Context/explanation:

US president Franklin Roosevelt, British prime minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, the leaders of the Allies in World War II, met at Yalta in February, 1945.  

Churchill and Roosevelt pushed strongly for Stalin to allow free elections to take place in the nations of Europe after the war. At that time Stalin agreed, but there was a strong feeling by the other leaders that he might renege on that promise. The Soviets never did allow those free elections to occur. Later, Winston Churchill wrote, ""Our hopeful assumptions were soon to be falsified." Stalin and the Soviets felt they needed the Eastern European nations as satellites to protect their own interests.   A line of countries in Eastern Europe came into line with the USSR and communism.  Churchill later would say an "iron curtain" had fallen between Western and Eastern Europe.

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Please help I'm so lost!
    7·1 answer
  • Give three examples of how the male figure was changed proportionally in the Sixth Dynasty.
    12·1 answer
  • HELP HELP HELP HELP!!!Why did the Persians struggle at the Battle of Marathon?
    15·1 answer
  • What was the German blitzkrieg? (1 point)
    15·1 answer
  • Jazz scholar Nathan Davis asks,“What kind of music might we have had if African slaves had been taken to China or Japan or any o
    12·1 answer
  • In the 1980s, which leader attempted to reform the Soviet Union's economic
    8·2 answers
  • Cyrus conquered what lands
    12·1 answer
  • Both enslaved and free African Americans had more opportunity to obtain skilled occupations in the south than in the north. Why
    8·1 answer
  • What were the aims of civil disobedience movement
    15·1 answer
  • Why was mr pedrick a failure inventer
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!