Which is the best example of a primary source document useful in the study of history?

a. a documentary with expert analysis of the event in question

b. a peer-reviewed article written about the event by a respected historian

c. a professorial analysis of key battlefield strategies of the event

d. a journal excerpt from a person involved in the event in question

The correct answer is D. A journal excerpt from a person involved in the event in question

Explanation:

A primary source document refers to a document that was written during or shortly after an event being studied; additionally this sources are written by someone who directly experienced or witness the event, because of this primary sources are especially useful in history because they provide information that is authentic and is first-hand information, which made them different to secondary sources that are written based on primary sources. Considering this, the document that is a primary source and is useful in the study of history is "A journal excerpt from a person involved in the event in question" because this source was written during or shortly after the event studied and by someone that was involved which means is a first-hand account of the event or a primary information. Also, other documents are secondary as they do not directly report the event or were not written by someone who experienced it.

bismarck believed in using force

is the correct answer!

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.