USA had a better navy. (The White Fleet?)
USA was backed by guerrlia warfare in the Philippines.
USA had terrible guns going against the Spanish in the San Juan hill.
The USA Springfield Gun 1892 - 99 side clip was highly inefficient compared to the Spanish Mauser.
The Spanish had more firepower the Maxim beat the Gattling Gun.
Making food and watching the children.
<em>A. Congress was denied power to regulate trade.</em>
Explanation:
The Articles of Confederation had many weaknesses, it did not give proper power to the national government, so they could not regulate trade, enforce laws, or tax citizens. Colonists were scared that if enough power got into the hands of the government, the same thing would happen with what happened with Great Britain. Although the national government had no judicial branch, would also be correct in this case, as the national government did not have enough power or resources to do so, the question states "mercantile laws", which have to do with trade. Congress did not have any power to regulate trade under the Articles of Confederation, as they hated how the British used to enforce laws on them about what they can and cannot trade, and who they can and cannot trade with.
The creation of the an army of Turkish warriors to help the Abbasid Caliphs secure their position ultimately led to the conversion of the Turks to Islam, and eventually giving them control over Sunni Islam.
The Abbasid Caliphs were leaders of the "Abbasid Dynasty," which is 2nd of the two great Sunni (Islam) dynasties. Meanwhile, the Seljuk Turks were nomadic people who converted to Islam. Because they were often used as military mercenaries by the Abbasid Caliphate, their power grew, eventually weakening the power of the caliphs, and giving them "control over" Sunni Islam. They revitalized Islamic laws, reorganized the institutions, and provided political stability to the empire.
There are scientific sources that affirm that communism is the extreme form of socialism, others affirm that after the Second World War, socialism appeared as a transformed form of communism.
Now, in terms of the economic focus of both we have;
COMMUNISM:
<em>The goods of production are handled by all, that is to say that the concept of property within the goods of production is annulled.
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>The production is related only to meet human needs, without the need for money.
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Look for the condition in which material abundance exists.
</em>
SOCIALISM:
<em>The means of production are from public companies or cooperatives.
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Individuals are compensated according to the principle of individual contribution.
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Production can be coordinated by economic planning or economic markets.</em>
