The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Do you consider Bishop Eusebius’s account to be reliable?
No, really not.
The reason why because his account had created many controversies.
Eusebius has been known as the official historian of the church. He participated in the Council of Nice in 314, organized by Roman Emperor Constantine to revise the religious or historic documents that would end up being in the Bible.
So Eusebius based most of his comments on personal opinions and other historic document's interpretations. It is difficult to say that he did the proper research and had reliable sources. During the Nicea Council, a group of Bishops decided what documents had to be part of the Bible and which not, based on their own criteria. That is not a good indicator of the validity of the documents included, even less we can consider those as sacred.
The best answer is D) The two armies fought to a draw.
The fighting was brutal and lasted basically all day. Both Washington and Cornwallis fought bravely and commanded wisely. Ultimately, the fighting stopped as night fell, Cornwallis made a quiet retreat at midnight in order to consolidate forces in New York.
Answer:
I think that would be 44 or 34 years
Explanation:
Sorry if I'm wrong
Definitely harmful, the Catholic Church is actually what really caused the problems because the interaction between the two made diseases spread, and fights begin when Native Americans didn't want to change
The KKK reemerged again and grew to millions of members in the 20s for a variety fo reasons.
They first gained a foothold in the depression after World War I before the roaring 20s. By stoking the xenophobia and conservative moralism of white Protestants in cities around the country (not just the South), the KKK was able to recruit members who feared immigrants and a loss of their "way of life."
