HELP! WILL DO BRAINLIEST! a) Briefly describe ONE major difference between Potter’s and Holt’s historical interpretations of the Civil War.
b) Briefly explain how ONE specific historical event or development during the period 1786-1861 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Potter’s interpretation.
c) Briefly explain how ONE specific historical event or development during the period 1786-1861 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Holt’s interpretation.

a) ONE major difference between David M. Potter's and Michael F. Holt's historical interpretations of the Civil War is that Potter blamed the perennial sectional conflicts between the North and the South for the Civil War. He stated that the divergent views on the issue of slavery did not occasion the Civil War but the ingrained sectionalism.

On the other hand, Holt noted that the Civil War reflected a break from the American tradition of compromise, stating that the Civil War was not a normal phenomenon in the American political democratic process.

b) Potter's interpretation of the Civil War can be supported by this ONE specific historical event, the breakdown of the two-party system that pitted far-right democratic republicanism against center-right republicanism.  The far-right republicanism promoted white supremacy, while the center-right democratic republicanism tilted towards acceptance of black equality.

The white supremacists welcomed the Supreme Court's sanction of Jim Crow laws and practiced the separation of whites from blacks to high heavens. The center-right moderates sought the overturning of the separatism principle and practice.

c) The Civil War, according to Holt, is ONE specific historical event that proved that America broke with its tradition of compromise. The Great Compromise of 1787 ensured that America was not thrown into a civil war during the Constitution Convention with all the opposing views by Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

Thus, Potter's interpretation of the cause of the Civil War concentrated on ingrained divisive tendencies between the North and the South, while Holt's interpretation blamed the breakdown of the two-party system, which allowed democratic opposition.

Learn more: link

-an amendment is proposed.

-two-thirds of congress must approve.

-thee-quarters of states must approve.

-the proposed amendment becomes law.

hope this

pacal the great: the throne was passed on to pacal through a female; as a result, he believed that he must legitimize his claim to the throne to add stability to his reign.

as a result, the daughter of ac kan's brother ruled until her son, pacal, reached an age old enough to assume the throne.

pacal the great became the king of the mayan city of palenque in a different way than most mayan kings.

pacal pointed out that ac kan had succeeded his mother as ruler, thereby establishing a precedent for the rule to pass through a female.  

he tried to justify that the way he gained the throne by connecting his mother with the divine mother and the mythological events that happened during the creation of the world.  

typically, the son of a male mayan ruler inherited the throne, but in 612 ce, king ac kan died and did not leave behind a male heir.

montezuma 1: even so, these wars of conquest failed to provide enough human sacrifices and because of this, he formed a triple alliance with cities in the valley of puebla-tlascala.  

in addition, montezuma realized that his government failed to the aztecs during the famine.

in order to appease him, montezuma increased the number of human sacrifices.

the aztec performed human sacrifices to their god huitzilopotchli because they believed he desired human blood.  

around 1440 ce, montezuma i became the fifth emperor of the aztecs and went on to rule for 28 years.  

soon after he assumed the throne, the aztecs were hit with a series of disasters, namely a plague of locusts, a flood, and a harsh frost  

huayna capac: huayna capac also fought to gain territories north of his empire in what is now ecuador.  

huayna capac significantly extended the inca empire to the south, into what is now argentina and chile.  

in 1493 ce, huayna capac became the eleventh ruler of the inca empire.  

huayna, therefore, wanted to gain his own lands and launched campaigns against tribes to the east and north of the empire.  

the inca empire reached its peak under the rule of huayna capac.

during this time the empire covered a vast territory including parts of present day colombia, peru, argentina, chile, bolivia, and ecuador.

during his reign, huayna heard about bearded men with pale skin that resembled the incan1 god viracocha and took this news as a bad omen.

huayna took this as another bad omen that predicted the destruction of the empire.