What is the most significant limitation that Carl Schurz’s work has, as a resource for a historian? He was not an eyewitness to the events he describes. He was too young to be a reliable witness. He was an employee of the government and likely biased against the revolutionaries. He wrote his account about fifty years after the events occurred.

He wrote his account about fifty years after the events occurred.

Explanation:

Carl Christian Schurz was a statesman, writer, and reformer of the United States. Following the German revolution of 1848, he moved to the United States and was made a leading member of the emerging Republican Party. He published several writings, including a two-volume biography of Henry Clay (1887), a volume of speeches (1865), and his Reminiscences (1907–09). As per the question, his works limitation lies in the gap of the timeframe when the actual event occurred and when he finally wrote it down.

pinterest: xxxsociety (if anyone sees this follow me on there xd)

its b wells tried to fight lynching in the south by