In the early 19th century the owners of sugar plantations faced a huge problem. This was witnessed by water shortage as well as lack of labor.
The civil war wasn't self defense, it was a war over the issue of slavery and the rights of the states, so I'd eliminate B. The south actually had the superior military leaders, the North was struggling with that part, so it's not C either. And D isn't an advantage, it's just a stand view, so that leaves the answer to be <span>A. The north had more natural resources. </span>
<span>Sanford B. Dole is the answer</span>
Answer:
Explanation:
I don't see how this is possible, but the answer seems to be A which is the only answer that makes sense.
Large tax cuts don't have anything to do with supply of goods. It does help consumption but that is not the same thing as supply side economics.
C is much truer for the aftermath of WWI than a general statement about Supply. I don't think it is the right answer.
It didn't call for increased government spending unless the government wanted the goods being produced.
I think I'd go with A. It is the most straight forward.
Answer:
with out a doubt C
Explanation:
South Carolina was a slave state and they wanted to stay that way. Lincoln hated slavery.