Briefly describe one major difference between potters and holts historical interpretation of the civil war.

Potter's Historical Interpretations of the Civil War:  

Students of history state that he had a lopsided scholarly history, since he offered a dimension of tolerance to the genius bondage philosophies that he doesn't grant to the abolitionist subjugation development. Abolitionists were everything from oppressive to helpful people, as per Potter.  

Holt's Historical Interpretation of the Civil War:

Holt, then again, was a teacher so he given an increasingly clear translation of the Civil War, indeed, Holt sees the contention as a breakdown in America's majority rule political procedure. No longer contrasts must be settled inside the field of fight, as per him.

harry potter has a scar

Explanation:

idk who holt is??? hahahahahaha

Potter's Historical Interpretations of the Civil War:  

Students of history state that he had a lopsided scholarly history, since he offered a dimension of tolerance to the genius bondage philosophies that he doesn't grant to the abolitionist subjugation development. Abolitionists were everything from oppressive to helpful people, as per Potter.  

Holt's Historical Interpretation of the Civil War:

Holt, then again, was a teacher so he given an increasingly clear translation of the Civil War, indeed, Holt sees the contention as a breakdown in America's majority rule political procedure. No longer contrasts must be settled inside the field of fight, as per him.

this is not my answer