Answer:
Similar to the Egyptians, the British sought to gain control over the Sudan to establish both a settler and plantation based colony that would allow for them to gain more accessibility to the Nile, its trade routes, and the trading markets. This access to the Nile and its trade markets allowed for the British to gain significant amounts of profit from the sale and trading of British manufactured goods including textiles, alcohol, and guns along with establishing new trading relationships with the growing cities. Along with this, the British heavily desired to gain access to the existent natural resources in Sudan with specific interest in the cotton supply
The declaration of sentiments is inherently biased since it was signed almost exclusively by women who were reaching for their rights. This, however, is completely understandable because they were a minority group. <span />
The British was able to win the Seven Years wars through;
• Proper leadership through William Pitt who invested heavily in the war by increasing his control on North America. Louis XV of France was more occupied with his wife and court proceedings that diverted his attention on the colonies.
• Application of a different global strategy-William Pitt invested more money and resources in the conflict in the colonies.
• There was collaboration with authorities-Local authorities were granted control over supplies and recruitment of soldiers.
• British were having a better navy and controlled most of the harbors.
• The British had large numbers of soldiers and better resources.
<span>It lasted for 7 years. Americans at the time ascribed the reason for the frenzy essentially to household political clashes. Some censured Jackson for declining to restore the contract of the Bank, bringing about the withdrawal of government reserves from the bank. Martin Van Buren, who progressed toward becoming president in March 1837, was to a great extent reprimanded for the frenzy despite the fact that his initiation went into the frenzy by just five weeks. Van Buren's refusal to utilize government intercession to deliver the emergency as indicated by his adversaries contributed further to the hardship and term of the dejection that took after the frenzy. Jacksonian Democrats, then again, faulted the National Bank, both in subsidizing uncontrolled hypothesis and in presenting inflationary paper cash. Current market analysts, for the most part, see Van Buren's deregulatory financial strategy as effective in the long haul for its significance in renewing banks after the frenzy</span>
