Each question presents a hypothesis for developing a historical argument. determine whether a historian’s political ideology or social ideology would influence the historian’s answer to each question. how were colonial constitutions in america different from british colonial charters? how did the harlem renaissance affect american culture as a whole during the 1920s? how did religious intolerance impact different groups of immigrants in early america? how effective was president franklin d. roosevelt’s new deal legislation in america? how did desegregation affect the white and black populations living in alabama? what was the diplomatic relationship between the united states and russia after world war ii ended?

How were colonial constitutions in America different from British colonial charters?  - A liberal historian would think that the American constitution is better than British colonial charters, because it grants more freedom. On the other hand, a mornachist historian would probably dislike the American constitution because it abolishes monarchy.

How did the Harlem Renaissance affect American culture as a whole during the 1920s? - A prejudiced or even racist historian would dislike the effects of this phenomenon, while a liberal or progressive historian would have a positive opinion about it.

How did religious intolerance impact different groups of immigrants in early America? - A contemporary historian from a specific religious background (for example, a puritan historian) would have a biased view about the other religious groups, while a non-religious historian would probably be more objective.

How effective was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation in America? A libertarian historian would dislike the New Deal because it was about more state intervention. A keynesian or socialist historian would probably praise the New Deal because it meant more state intervention.

How did desegregation affect the white and black populations living in Alabama? - A conservative historian who might have been against the civil rights movements would probably highlight the negative aspects of desegregation, while a liberal historian who might have even participated in the civl rights movement would highlight the positive aspects of desegregation.

What was the diplomatic relationship between the United States and Russia after World War II ended? - A russian historian would be biased in favor of Russia, an american historian would probably be biased in favor of the United States.

true

explanation: