The skepticism about the empire of Ghana and the accounts for it is nothing weird because the majority of what is written about it is from two people from the same place, that had totally different views and interpretations on the things, and came from different culture.
Very often in the historical text, the people that wrote something have been very subjective, not objective. Thus the writings of these two Arab geographers can be very misleading, as they described what they saw with their own eyes, but also with using their own perception. That has proven numerous times to give very inaccurate depictions of a society and culture, like the depictions of the Romans for the Celts, or of the Greeks for the Scythian female warriors that they named Amazons.
There's only one point of view unfortunately, and it is always much more reliable when multiple writings are available from people from multiple different backgrounds, or the best scenario if it is writings from the people in question.
The redeemers were the southern wing of the Bourbon Democrats, the conservative, pro-business faction in the Democratic Party, who pursued a policy of Redemption, seeking to oust the Radical Republicans a coalition of freedom, "carpetbaggers", and "scalawags" (poorer non-slaving whites).
Answer:
FWPUGBUJFERUGEURGFEJRGUEGHU
Explanation:
Because many believed there could be gold and many other riches that were undiscovered and also wished in claiming new land for wars in case another broke out
Answer:
Post -Civil war reconstruction.
Explanation:
During years the politic of United States was the overseas expansion ( Ocean to ocean).
Many Americans did move to territories in the west and the south. This expansionism always was a force in American History,
But during the time of the civil war while the nation was torn apart, the expansion came to a halt after that time the US started rebuilding and expanding again.
