At the time, most people lived pretty isolated from each other. There was no radio or television or even telephone yet. Most of the population communicated via letters and got their information from newspapers.
During the 1850s, correspondence was still very slow though, so if we're just taking speed of delivery into account, the telegraph would've been the most viable option. This resource wasn't available everywhere because it still relied on a direct wiring system and it was also very expensive.<u> </u>Atlanta and New York City are close enough so they could communicate with telegraph and it would've certainly been the fastest way at the time.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
During recent decades, the problem of’ social exclusion’ has been widely discussed in Europe. Since the early 1990s, when the term first came to prominence in France, it has rapidly gained currency as a key word in a transnational debate on the new challenges faced by highly developed Western societies — a debate that prompted the European Union to proclaim 2010 the ‘European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion’.1 Although modern welfare states have produced a level of affluence unprecedented in history, symptoms of erosion are apparent. The oft-deplored crisis of the welfare state has many different facets, and many causes have been identified. Yet there is a widely- shared assumption that economic factors such as high rates of unemployment and the financial overburdening of social insurance systems cannot alone be blamed. Rather, social exclusion has a cultural side as well. The established mechanisms of social inclusion seem especially to be failing to have an effect on groups on the margins of society that are not only materially disadvantaged but are also in some way ‘deviant’. The welfare state aims at inclusion, but has difficulty including groups who do not think, behave and live as the ‘normal’ citizen does. So social exclusion is, at least in part, related to a (perceived) lack of adaptation to dominant cultural attitudes.
Rurik was a legendary Varangian chieftain who gained control of Ladoga in 862.
Hope this helps
A scientific argument is when it had more examples of that certain argument. What I’m saying is that scientific arguments have more details and more evidence to why that answer is wrong or right. Regular arguments is when it is less detailed and just making predictions and theoretical analysis. (Hope this helps)
the United States would intervene in Latin American affair when it felt its interests were at risk
