The answer to this really depends on what prism you are viewing it from?
As a globe, we are pretty opposed to imperialism these days. China has started to dabble a little more in the South China Sea but we mostly have our nation states and there isn't really a lot of movement.
That was not the case at the time of annexation.
So, is it ethical to subsume a sovereign nation? No
Was it strategically justifiable at the time? Yes. If the United States had not annexed Hawaii, the Empire of Japan likely would have stepped in.
Hawaii has enormous strategic value and was then justifiable at the time of annexation.
That being said, and I hope this is an obvious statement, imperialism is not a good thing and is ethically problematic.
Answer - The two most famous conquistadors were Hernán Cortés who conquered the Aztec Empire and Francisco Pizarro who led the conquest of the Incan Empire.
Answer: North.
Explanation: The factories were mostly located in the north, the north was well on its way towards a commercial and manufacturing economy, which would have a direct impact on its war making ability. Larger percentage of the nations manufacturing output came from the north. The industrialization of the north had an impact upon urbanization and immigration. The north industrial and economic capacity soared during the war and its continued its rapid industrialization to suppress the rebellion. The south in contrast featured a smaller industrial base , fewer rail lines, and an agricultural economy based upon slave labor made mobilization of resources more difficult. The lag in the industrial development of the south did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages, In fact they possessed great economic wealth, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy.
