Essay topic #2 michael shaara wrote the killer angels from the point of view of not only the union army, but also the confederate army. when he wrote accounts of the battle from the confederate side, he wrote from the point of view of the high ranking and most famous generals, such as robert e. lee, james longstreet, and j. e.b. stuart. however, when writing from the union point of view, he used the perspectives of brigadier general (one star) john buford and colonel joshua chamberlain. question #2: why did michael shaara not use higher ranking officers, like commanding general george meade, in his book to tell the story of the union's fight but used the most well-known and high ranking confederates to tell their side of the story? were the heroics of the likes of chamberlain at little round top and buford holding the ground on the first day a worthier story to tell rather than from the point of view from meade?

the right answer is the constitution

i do not believe this was true indefiantly the native americans would have lsot aganist america one they didndt have the resources and allies that america had and 2   indians werent as advanced at the time as they were not 3 americans had the expreince because some of the soliders from other wars fought in that war and were attecked etc

2b2t

explanation:

2b2t

the covenant that god made with abraham was a unilateral (one-sided) promise from god to abraham.   apart from anything abraham did, god was promising that he was going to bring about a great nation from abraham's offspring, and that the messiah (meaning "the anointed one") would come from abraham's descendants, as one through whom the whole world would receive favor from god.   as god promised abraham, "through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed" (genesis 22: 18).

the "new covenant" was announced by jesus of nazareth, who had asserted that he was the "son of david" (and descendant of abraham) that fulfilled those promises to abraham.   when jesus introduced the sacred meal that we now refer to as the lord's supper, as told his disciples in reference to the wine they drank, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (luke 22: 20).   this "new covenant" through jesus was also a unilateral (one-sided) covenant.   he gave himself in sacrifice for all people, without conditions attached.   as his friend and apostle john later wrote, "he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 john 2: 2).

so the covenant with abraham and the "new covenant" ushered in by jesus are, in essence, connected as one covenant -- because jesus was saying he was the one promised to abraham that fulfilled that covenant and brought blessing to the world.