What’s one major difference between potter’s and holt’s historical interpretations of the civil war?

Potter's Historical Interpretations of the Civil War

Historians say that he had an unbalanced intellectual history, since he offered a level of patience to the pro-slavery ideologies that he does not award to the anti-slavery movement. Abolitionists were everything from abusive to humanitarians, according to Potter.

Holt's Historical Interpretation of the Civil War

Holt, on the other hand, was a professor so he provided a more lucid interpretation of the Civil War, as a matter of fact, Holt sees the conflict as a breakdown in America's democratic political process. No longer differences had to be resolved within the arena of battle, according to him.

jewish people sniffed up all of the money, thus making it hard for society

no one really purchased it themselves, it was all america, they had debates etc.