The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
The Indian fight for independence from the British empire received such strong support not only in India but from other countries, for teh fact that its leader, Mahatma Gandhi, decided to base the Indian Independence movement on non-violent acts.
So we can say that a big part of the success of the movement was due to the non-violence approach and tactics of its leaders.
As happened in the past, if a violent approach would have been taken, the English king could easily have sent soldiers and special troops to quickly ending with any fight or rebellion. So Gandhi really knew that a war was not a real option and many Indians could have died on the battlefield with not a real chance of winning the war.
So the nonviolent approach was the smartest decision he could have made.
Southern states wanted new slave territories, while the north wanted to contain the spread of slavery. while western expansion contributed to growing sectional tensions between the north and south from 1800-1820
<h2><u>Answer:</u></h2>
"Internal Immigration" alludes to development starting with one area then onto the next. Albeit worldwide movement gets more consideration, the more noteworthy segment of versatility happened inside or between districts as individuals moved their work, material riches, and social thoughts.
On a very basic level, moves in relocation designs start in changes in landholding, business, statistic designs, and the area of capital. Long-standing examples of portability changed around 1750, when a stamped populace increment and expansion of country industry settled rustic individuals in assembling towns and towns, while those in different areas took to the street.
The industrialization of the nineteenth century delivered a urban culture and high movement rates that along these lines subsided in the twentieth century.
