Revising..... That's the answer.......
Society was changing from rural (Country) to urban (City).
Explanation:
When the industrialization process started int he United States, the country started to change rapidly. Initially this process was not accepted the same everywhere, with the North embracing it while the South not being so fond of it but over time it took over all of the states.
The majority of the people lived in rural societies before the industrialization but once it started there was a massive shift of the population from the rural to the urban areas. This resulted in emptying of the rural areas and rapid increase in population and size of the cities. This happened first in the North, so huge cities rose like New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston etc.
The South was slower in this process because it thought that the agriculture does the job for it economically. That quickly changed though with the change of policy of the country, so once the economic troubles started there was sharp demographic switch from the rural to the urban areas in this part of the United States.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although you forgot to attach the options for this question, we can say the following.
Lincoln uses repetition in this sentence to emphasize the idea that "ultimate sacrifice given by the soldiers on this ground."
When United States President Abraham Lincoln repeated the parallel construction he tried to emphasize the ultimate sacrifice given by the Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers on that ground of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.
This sentence is part of the famous Gettysburg address delivered by him on November 19, 1863. Previously to that above-mentioned line, Lincoln had said the following: <em>"We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live."</em>
This can serve us to understand the whole idea of the excerpt.
I think it's called Tanakh. Sorry if I'm wrong!
Not really,
It is reliant on the intensity of the attack as well as the power of the attacking nation.
some countries have been attacked and literally never fought back but surrendered if the attacking nation is more powerful in terms of military power.
in case the intensity of the attack can be absorbed, a country can also opt for diplomacy as war is the ultimate sanction in international relation.
in case the country feels it has the capacity to protect its sovereignty then fighting back is the only option.
