There were various effects of the Civil War but one thing that was not an effect was Reduced rate of industrial production in the north.
<h3>How did the Civil War benefit the North?</h3>
The North benefitted from the Civil War because the Civil War was rarely fought on Northern soil which meant that their industries were not destroyed or damaged by war.
In fact, the North was able to increase industrial production to be able to provide their soldiers with more weapons and provisions to fight the war, thereby increasing industrial production.
Options for this question include:
- Reduced rate of industrial production in the north
- Increased rate of industrial production in the north
- Massive destruction of Southern infrastructure
Find out more on the effects of the Civil War at brainly.com/question/11470945
#SPJ1
In general yes, the states honored their agreement since the Articles of Confederation demanded practically nothing from the states--meaning that it wasn't hard for the states to uphold their end of the bargain.
Before Polk, the United States and Mexico had boundaries along the Rio Grande River. Texas and Polk claimed that America's southern border ran down to the river south of the United States' positon back then. They had a war, but Mexico lost and U.S kept expanding.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
Ultimately, the largest difference between America's two governing documents is in that the Articles sovereignty resided in the states, and the Constitution was declared the law of the land when it was ratified which significantly increased the power of the federal government.
Explanation:
The answer that best describes part od James Otis' role in the revolutionary period was : B Otis opposed the British practice of executing searches without warrants
According to him , this was very unconstitutional and he argued it to the supreme court of Massachusetts
hope this helps
