Briefly explain ONE major difference between Wood’s and Bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British.

From the excerpt provided one major difference between Wood’s and Bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British is that Wood concluded that Americans rebelled based on new thoughts and ideas, while Bailyn concluded that it was based on the need to protect the English constitution against the saboteurs or plotters that wants to destroy the English constitution that supports human rights, liberty, and privileges.

According to Wood, the American revolution is caused by new thoughts and ideas; an intellectual and reasons principle to protect the existing social structure or freedom which they have been enjoying through their forefathers who came from England. Hence, they see themselves as heirs of freedom, and they must maintain the privilege.

Bailyn, on the other hand, believes that the cause of the American revolution is based on the Americans' perceived conspirators or plotters who seek to destroy the English constitution including the liberty, rights, and privileges embedded in it. Hence, they must fight these conspirators to protect themselves against the destruction of the liberty, rights, and privileges they enjoy.

Hence, one major difference between Wood’s and Bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British is in the cause of their revolution is that Wood believe the cause of revolution is from new ideas and thoughts, while Bailyn believes it was just a means to fight the conspirators against English constitution.

Learn more here: link

The ONE major difference between Wood’s and Bailyn’s historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British is:

According to Wood, the American colonies rebelled and revolted out of reasoned principle. They had the mindset that they were "born heirs of freedom" and that freedom is their everyday life. While, according to Bailyn, the colonies rebelled and revolted due to the rise of conspirators who stood against their freedom.

Explanation:

Wood's and Bailey's historical interpretations of why the American colonies rebelled against the British can be seen from the excerpt. It's evident that their interpretations differ.

Wood revealed that the Americans didn't rebel due to suffering but due to a "reasoned principle". Whereas, Bailey interpreted it to be that the conspirators against the liberty propelled the revolt.

the catholic church withhold people's access to the bible during the middle ages.

people could go to church and listen to the teachings, but it was absolutely forbidden to own and/or read the books of both the old and new testaments. it was also prohibited to translate the books (which where originally in biblical hebrew) to any other language.

this was done so the church could remain in control of what their teachings were and to enhance their importance and power, while also being able to judge people's actions through information that was unavailable for the general public.