The term historians use when they discuss the relationship between two events in which one is the direct result of another is causation.
Historians may employ the concept of causation in a wide range of ways, each of which is linked with different historiographical claims and different kinds of argumentation.
Through this application, it will be clear that historical narratives are causal, and that micro-history can be seen as a response to a very specific (causal) problem of Braudelian macro-history.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
On May 16, 1868, US President Andrew Jhonson was elated after the US Senate had acquitted him during his impeachment trial. After the vote, 35 senators voted guilty and 19, not guilty on the 11th article on impeachment.
This made President Jhonson to me more confident that 10 days later, on May 26, 1868, the Senate would again favor him And so it was. The votes were identical. 35 senators voted guilty and 19, not guilty on the 2nd article of impeachment.
The reaction of the radical Republicans was one of anger for the decision made in Congress. Let's remember that Radical Republicans always had major differences with President Johnson in different areas, such as the way to order Reconstruction in the southern states.
The answer that fits the blank is EXECUTIVE OFFICE. The president needs the senate to acquire the confirmation of those who are appointed by the president to federal positions in order to assist him in the executive office but not necessarily in the White House Office.
Vladimir Putin was the second president of Russia
