The economic value of having colonies in the first place was for 3 main reasons
1) attain cheap labour from the native peoples
2) acquire cheap raw materials to bring to the homeland (Europe)
3) open up new markets to trade with
the first two were vital in Britains industrial revolution. Without cheap raw materials, and cheap labourers, the factories and refineries in Britain would have costed far more to maintain and keep supplied. This, in turn, would have slowed down production considerably. There is no doubt in my mind that the industrial revolution would still have taken place in Britain with or without the colonies, but WITH the colonies the process was sped up considerably.
Overall, cheap labour and raw materials attained through Britains colonial interests sped up the industrialisation of the UK.
Answer:
In 1867, Congress overrode a presidential veto in order to pass an act that divided the South into military districts that placed the former Confederate states under martial law pending their adoption of constitutions guaranteeing civil liberties to former slaves. Hope this helps^_^
Explanation:
plz give brainliest and rating
Answer:
He is trying to show who has power while also trying to build up the British image.
Explanation:
Well.... to start with the "Recession<span>" Tops The </span>Great Depression<span>. When the stock market crashed in October 1929, it was only the beginning of a long period of economic decline and uncertainty that would last more than a decade. ... In 2011 those few years often where described as the worst economic crisis since the </span>Great Depression. But how do the two differ in a quick answer.<span> The </span>difference<span> between the two is that the unemployment rate in "The Great R</span>ecession"<span> was less severe than in "The Great D</span><span>epression"</span>
Huh? can you explain it a little more?
