Henry Grady was a Georgian journalist who encouraged the industrialization of the South following the model of the North. After the Civil War, the North experienced a period of fast industrialization and a rapid technological advance. All this prosperity was boosted by the Industrial Revolution that affected all over in the world during the 1800s. In contrast, the South was still predominantly agricultural. Its economy was based in a <em>sharecropping model</em>, in which white landlords had their fields worked and tended by farm laborers. Under this system, the landlord would provide the capital (usually obtained by a loan) to buy seeds and equipment, and the laborers would work. The profit would be not equally divided between both parts. Because of the low prices of the products, the farmers often fell in a cycle of indebtedness. This system left both farmers and workers in deep poverty. Grady had a voice. He was not just a journalist, but a newspaper editor with great oratory skills. In a series of public speeches, he envisioned an industrialized South, with manufacturing facilities, commerce and "<em>thrilling with the consciousness of growing power and prosperity</em>", in his words. This remake would be called <u>"New South"</u> and its main feature would be a "<em>diversified industry that meets the complex needs of this (the post-Reconstruction period) complex age</em>". His speeches motivated politics and he gained the empathy of the public in general. The modernization did happen, but it wasn't quite the same as Henry had dreamed. Some success could be seen in the iron and steel manufacturing segments. The textile mills was a great initiative, but it could have had more success if the wages weren't so low. Henry also defended the white supremacy and this idea held back the economic improvement. While landlords and factories prospered, the low-wage factoring work kept many in dire poverty.
Both presidentialism and parliamentarism are unequivocally democratic, but each of these regimes leads to different political consequences.
The great difference is that in parliamentarism the executive branch is composed of a president or a monarch, head of state, with limited powers, and a government appointed by Parliament, which at any time can censor. In presidentialism, however, the head of state and government coincide in the same person, are not subject to parliamentary censure and the Legislative Branch is limited to the area of law making.
Therefore, in presidentialism, voters elect the head of government (who in turn is head of state); instead, in parliamentarism, the head of government is appointed by the head of state, who is voted by the people.
Answer:
i am sure something she said was "Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet."
Explanation:
Mark brainliest please but only if you would like to.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
Catastrophe the Presidential order of succession
Explanation:
