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

explanation:

i have ni idea

yes based on alexanders actions he deserved the title of "the great". his empire covered about 3,000 miles and he was able to establish the empire over a 13 year period of time. he was able to conquer many different places. he also defeated the persians. he conquered egypt and developed a city and named it after himself.