Read the following historical perspectives from two modern-day historians. which of the following explains why historian a mentions the issue of slavery while historian b does not?
historian a:
the american revolution was caused by the american colonists’ greedy desire for more money. they were simply tired of paying their fair share of taxes to the british government, even though british troops protected the colonies during the french and indian war! furthermore, their claims to be fighting for freedom and liberty are totally wrong. many of the colonists still owned slaves at the time of the revolution! the traitorous american colonists simply wanted to steal land that was already claimed by great britain.
historian b:
the american revolution was completely justified due to great britain’s repeated abuse of the colonists. the british passed enormous taxes on goods in the colonies, even though the americans had no say in the british government. british soldiers were also allowed to live in american houses and eat common people’s food without paying. during the boston massacre, british soldiers even fired their muskets into a crowd of civilians! under such oppressive conditions, it’s no wonder that the patriotic colonists would want to fight for the freedom and liberty of all people!
a. historian b wants to make the british appear to be disinterested in american affairs, including the terrible institution of slavery.
b. historian a wants to make the colonists appear in a negative light by suggesting that they did not really believe in freedom for all.
c. historian a is using slavery as a metaphor to argue that the american colonists have treated their british leaders poorly.
d. historian b is making a purely economic argument, so there is no need for him to mention the institution of slavery.

In the decision for dred scott vs.sanford, (1857) in which a slave petitioned for his freedom in a st. louis court, on the grounds that his owner had taken him into free territory, and thus he ought no longer be regarded as possessing "slave" status, but should be regarded as a free man, the court decided as follows (excerpt): "in the circuit courts of the united states, the record must show that the case is one in which by the constitution and laws of the united states, the court had jurisdiction--and if this does not appear, and the court gives judgment either for plaintiff or defendant, it is error, and the judgment must be reversed by this court--and the parties cannot by consent waive the objection to the jurisdiction of the circuit court. a free negro of the african race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the constitution of the united states. when the constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the states as members of the community which constituted the state, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizen.' consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. and not being "citizens" within the meaning of the constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the united states, and the circuit court has not jurisdiction in such a suit. the only two clauses in the constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves. since the adoption of the constitution of the united states, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the united states, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument." why does the court say that the petitioning party in this case had no right to sue for his freedom? a) because he is too young b) because he is from a different state c) because he is "of the african race" with enslaved ancestors d) because he is, properly speaking, within his owner's jurisdiction

Why did leaders such as siddhartha gautama abandon hinduism to createbuddhism around 500 bce:

The belief that war often drives civil modifications to a society is based upon the evidence that in times of external conflict, a society is forced to abandon long held discriminatory values to: