What was true of the differences between the North and South after 1820?

2 answers:

7 0

One thing that was true of the differences between the North and South after 1820 was that "c. The North was becoming more urban and industrial," since the South's climate was much more conducive to large-scale agriculture.

3241004551 [841]3 years ago

4 0

The correct option would be C: The North was becoming more urban and industrial.

Industry flourished, fueled by more abundant natural resources than in the south, and many large cities were established. By 1860, one quarter of all Northeners lived in urban areas. Slavery had died out, replaced in the cities and factories by immigrant labour from Europe.

In fact, an overwhelming majority of immigrants settled in the North rather than the South. Transport was easier in the North.

Far more Northerners than Southerners belonged to the Whig/Republican political party and they were far more likely to have careers in business , medicine or education. In fact, an engineer was far more likely to be from the North than from the South. Northern children were more prone to attend school than Southern children.

You might be interested in

Why is it important to stop the germans from accessing the oil fields of saudi arabia?

Fantom [35]

The oil fields would enable Germany to fuel their air forces, making them harder to defeat.

8 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Under imperialism, the stronger nation attempts to

Slav-nsk [51]

All of the above :)

Hope that helps!

7 0

3 years ago

Cite evidence as you've read in many countries the chief of state reigns but does not rule. Cite evidence from your reading on t

Evgesh-ka [11]

There are different governmental systems in the world. Depending on them, there’ll be one or two figures that reign or rule. In Europe, there are mostly countries that have the Parlamental System, which the Parlament formed by deputies, senates, or even members from royal aristocracies, like the Lords in the United Kingdom, designate the ruler of the country.

This ruler is represented by the Prime Minister, who rules the countries. European Countries and Canada are good examples of this kind of system. One exclusive exception is Spain, which is ruled by a President elected by the Parliament. Spain is another example for which is called Parliamentalist Monarchy when a King or a Queen – in the UK’s case – reign the country.

In a Parliamentalist Monarchy, which is a Modern Monarchy first initialized in England in the XVII century, the monarch is pictured as a figure of power. They symbolize it but don’t have any prerogative to rule the country. In other words, they’re under-ruled by the Prime Minister and subject to the Parliament elected by the people. Other countries that use this kind of system are the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, etc. Countries like Liechtenstein are reigned by a Prince, and rule by a Prime Minister. Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are ruled by the Queen of the United Kingdom, but they have their respective Prime Ministers.

In France, Italy, Portugal, Germany, among others, have a President that reigns, but also a Prime Minister. Presidents are elected by the people, but they have a representative position, permitting to represent their countries in foreign meetings. In the homeland, they’re allowed to dissolute the parliament in case of people’s will. China also governs in this system, besides they have single-party politics.

In the USA and most of other Americas’ Countries, the governmental system is called Republicanism where a President rules and reigns the country. Their power is shared with the Parliaments, but they’re able to propose laws and sanction the ones ortogated by the Parliament. They represent the country, but also have decisive power in the national decisions.

3 0

3 years ago

How did a terrorist start World War I? plsss help meee it’s due at 6:00!

gladu [14]

Answer:

A terrorist assassinated the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand.

Explanation:

This should be right.

6 0

3 years ago

In the early 1800s, how was the belief in Manifest Destiny most likely to affect the admission of new states into the Union?

tatiyna

Simple....as we learned Manifest Destiny was the belief that it was God's will that there be WESTWARD EXPANSION. This meaning that the US claiming more lands to the West was meant to be. This being said...it is logical to conclude that the admission of states to the Union would be met with enthusiasm.

3 0

3 years ago