I think it’s either A or D
Option A. If a historian takes a source out of context, she is likely to:
A. misunderstand the intended meaning of historical actions.
<h3>What does it mean to take things out of context?</h3>
This is used to refer to the fact that a person is taking what is being said outside of the meaning that the message is supposed to convey. It has to do with not being able to understand what is said and interpreting it accordingly.
In this situation, when the historian takes things out of their context, then it means that they would not understand the true meaning of the happenings of that period.
Read more on historical events here: brainly.com/question/17040564
#SPJ1
The first amendment gives freedoms to many things like freedom to write or to speak out and freedom of your religion.
If you don't remember the first amendment that include your freedoms then you would think that you can't believe what you believe but you can I want to say somthing say it!!
The presidential elections
Answer:
Hmmm, I'll try to help you bud :3
2 of the 4 facts above that might cause me to question is "Although Robert Carter is describing events just after the Civil War, this interview was recorded in 1938" which gives me a question, did he predict the Civil War or was it a coincidence? Another fact I question his reliability about is "After the Civil War, the Freeman's Bureau assisted many former slaves who were seeking to start a new life in the South" and that's his reliability on helping slaves start a new life and assisted :3
Explanation:
:3
