The Confederates counteract the Union blockade they set up their own blockade along the Northern coastline.
<h3>What did the Union blockade Accomplish?</h3>
The blockade, although somewhat porous, was an essential economic policy that successfully contained Confederate access to weapons that the industrialized North could produce for itself. The U.S. Government successfully persuaded foreign governments to view the blockade as a honest tool of war.
<h3>Why was the Union blockade so dangerous to the Confederacy?</h3>
Explain why the Union blockade was so dangerous to the Confederate government. The southern economy trusted on cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and sugar. With the blockade, southerners could not sell these produce for money. They couldn't eat these produce either, so they were essentially worthless.
To learn more about Union blockade, refer
brainly.com/question/13773789
#SPJ9
Medieval art's characters showed little to no expression.
The characters looked flat due to repetitive colors and little to no shading.
The poses looked very stiff and portrayed rather stillness than real movement
If your choices are the following:
<span>A. Valjean's appearance contributes to the villagers' prejudice against him; this establishes the conflict.
B. Valjean's appearance makes the villagers feel sorry for him; this adds to the rising action.
C. Valjean's physical appearance has very little to do with the plot of the story; it has no impact on the plot.
D. Valjean's appearance causes the villagers to put their complete trust in him; this leads to a resolution.
The answer would be A</span>
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "D. flexible response" John Kennedy foreign policy supported peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union is that of being a <span>flexible response.</span>
<span>The Supreme Court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving: protection of individual rights.
Writing for the conservative group, <em>The Heritage Foundation</em>, Elizabeth Slattery defines judicial activism as "w</span><span>hen judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference."
Cases involving individual rights are likely to elicit charges of judicial activism because the Constitution does not spell out each and every sort of right citizens may have. New questions come up that were not considered or specified at the time the Constitution was written. For instance, <em>Roe v. Wade </em>(1973) addressed the question of abortion and an individual's right to privacy. <em>Obergefell v. Hodges </em>(2015) addressed the legality of same-sex marriage. Both are cases of individual rights, where the Constitution did not give direct instruction on the issues at stake. The decisions on those issues, to allow abortion and to allow same-sex marriage, both are criticized by conservatives as instances of judicial activism.</span>
