Answer:
Israel and Judah
Explanation:
On the succession of Solomon's son, Rehoboam, around 930 BCE, the biblical account reports that the country split into two kingdoms: the Kingdom of Israel (including the cities of Shechem and Samaria) in the north and the Kingdom of Judah (containing Jerusalem) in the south.
Answer:
No, the Crusades weren’t justifiable. The Arab/Muslim conquest of the region centuries earlier wasn’t justifiable either. There were no good guys or bad guys in that conflict. Both sides were wrong.
From the perspective of Jews and Samaritans, it was really just two colonial powers (Crusaders and Arabs) fighting over a land that never rightfully belonged to either of them in the first place.
Explanation:
What is important today is to understand that the unjustified reaction of the Christian community to actions in the Holy Land can be compared to the reaction of people in the Muslim world to Western dominance. So, instead of something like the Crusades was seen as an acceptance by many Muslims of terrorism. If the Christian Crusades were bad, so is the Muslim acceptance for decades of terrorism, particularly towards Israeli civilians.
Answer:
when in 1854 the Kansas-Nebraksa Act overturned the Missouri Compromise’s use of latitude as the boundary between slave and free territory and instead, using the principle of popular sovereignty, decreed that the residents would determine whether the area became a free state or a slave state. Proslavery and free-state settlers flooded into Kansas to try to influence the decision.
Explanation:
The south was the side that had the cotton, so B is the only one that makes sense. A is wrong because the north was manufacturing. C and D don't make sense for the same reason. I think it is B.
