HELP! WILL DO BRAINLIEST!

History

1 answer:

irina [24]3 years ago

8 0

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.

You might be interested in

How did Washington deal with treaty

goldfiish [28.3K]

The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, commonly known as the Jay Treaty, and also as Jay's Treaty, was a 1794 treaty between the United States and Great Britain that averted war, resolved issues remaining since the Treaty of Paris of 1783 (which ended the American Revolutionary War),[1] and facilitated ten years of peaceful trade between the United States and Britain in the midst of the French Revolutionary Wars, which began in 1792.[2] The Treaty was designed by Alexander Hamilton and supported by President George Washington. It angered France and bitterly divided Americans. It inflamed the new growth of two opposing parties in every state, the pro-Treaty Federalists and the anti-Treaty Jeffersonian Republicans.