Historians tend to see Reconstruction as a mix of successes and failures. Based on what you have learned about the goals and struggles of Reconstruction, in what ways did it succeed? Why do you think so? In what ways did it fail? Why?

What ideas do you have for how Reconstruction could have been handled so it would have been more satisfactory for all involved? Would you have changed some of the decisions made by the government? How would you have addressed the strong feelings people had about their culture and way of life?

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.

answer; limbic system;