How do the authors use historical evidence to support their claim? They use secondary sources to show how French and English monarchs were indifferent to enslaved people.
They use secondary sources to show that enslaved people often fought for their freedom after arriving in the Caribbean.
They use facts from primary sources to show how countries increased the number of enslaved people to produce more sugar.
They use primary source interviews to show that countries could make more money in trading sugar without using enslaved people.

no statements but ok.

the statement that best describes the idea of manifest destiny that was used in the 19th century would be that "it was fate that the united states would continue to  expand westward," since people thought the us was "destined" to do so. 

the berlin blockade was an international crisis that arose from an attempt by the soviet union, in 1948–49, to force the western allied powers (the united states, the united kingdom, and france) to abandon their post-world war ii jurisdictions in west berlin. in march 1948 the allied powers decided to unite their different occupation zones of germany into a single economic unit. in protest, the soviet representative withdrew from the allied control council. coincident with the introduction of a new deutsche mark in west berlin (as throughout west germany), which the soviets regarded as a violation of agreements with the allies, the soviet occupation forces in eastern germany began a blockade of all rail, road, and water communications between berlin and the west. on june 24 the soviets announced that the four-power administration of berlin had ceased and that the allies no longer had any rights there.

this is a good question! i'll do some research and come back when i have the answer!