How does sequence of events on a timeline help historians? -it allows them to consider events with specific dates

-it helps them consider events outside of their time periods

-it helps them understand relationships between events

-it helps them understand the places where events occurred

-it helps them understand relationships between events

Explanation:

Sequence of event is like a story which Historians analyse in order to know everything happened day by day, month or even years, in this they can know the real flow of time in that place as part of history.

BRAINLIEST PLEASE

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

the discoverers and explorers: 1. natives showed jedediah smith the way. 2. william sublette was the first cross it with a caravan. 3.joel walker and his family were the frist settlers to use it. the jumping off point: 1. founded in 1827 near where the missouri river flows into the mississippi. 2. by the 1840's, it was the most popular "jumping off" point for pioneers to stock their wagons with supplies. 3. missionaries from the church of jesus christ of latter day saints attempted to make independence their zion, or holy capital. the route west: 1. the first emigrants to oregon came by ship before the trail was established. 2. ships continued to to travel to oregon even after the overland migrations began, but they were not popular among the pioneers. 3. the fare for a sea journey to oregon was quite expensive--few pioneer families could afford it. i don't know the other three i'm sorry.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is