They are alike insofar that they both deal with with people from minorities and and the discrimination against people who were not of European descent. In Mendez v. Westminster it was about Mexican American people while in the Magnuson Act it was about the Chinese American population and discrimination against them.
To get jobs in factories, down mines etc. The Agricultural Revolution had led to enclosures of land, which m eant that many people could no longer earn a living from the country. The small farms that used to support most people were replaced by large farms belonging to a smaller number of landowners. The small farmers were driven out to look for work elsewhere. Some of them became farm labourers, working for the big farmers instead of running their own small farms. Others went to the towns.
The industrial revolution brought about a massive change in the way people worked for everyone, not just the small farmers. Prior to the revolution, most people worked in or near their own homes. Crafts like spinning, weaving, pottery etc were carried out at home, not in factories. Whole families tended to be involved in whatever the family enterprise might be. The Industrial Revolution obliged people to go and work in factories instead of working at home. The home and the workplace had become irrevocably seperate. People no longer worked for themselves, but for other people.
The Union Army was larger, and was able to draw on a far larger population for replacements. The Union Army had better artillery, and was able to manufacture their own artillery. The Union's forces were made up of a far larger percentage of immigrants, and in general had good junior and mid-level officers, and a lot of rather mediocre top level officers
powers not explicitly reserved for the federal government are given to the state's
