Answer:
It created political conflict,leading to a communist-controlled north and an anti-communist south.
<span>Sharecroppers were unable to pay off debts and fell deeper into debt. The weight of the debt
bound the sharecropper to the landowner as completely as they had been bound by slavery.
Farmers in the Midwest formed granges and those in the West and South established Farmers'
Alliances. These groups bargained for farmers as labor unions bargained for workers. The Alliances
soon evolved into the Populist Party. Highlights of the party platform include government
regulation and ownership of railroads, coinage of silver to produce inflation, and loans to farmers.</span>
Answer:
Ending enslavement would be unconstitutional, but states could refuse to enforce enslavement laws.
Explanation:
I took the quiz! :)
The middles colonies had rich farmland and a moderate climate. This made it a more suitable place to grow grain and livestock than New England. Their environment was ideal for small to large farms. The coastal lowland and bays provided harbors, thus the middle colonies were able to provide trading opportunities where the three regions meet in market towns and cities. The Southern colonies had fertile farmlands which contributed to the rise of cash crops such as rice, tobacco, and indigo.
The New England colonies had very long and cold winter, making it hard for crops to be grown. The soil was pretty rocky and unfertile, so not too many plants were grown. Most farms in New England were small family farms. The middle colonies were called the breadbasket states, because of how much wheat and barley were grown. The southern colonies grew many things. The Southern Colonies were able to grow crops, fruits, and vegetables because of their fertile soil, and warm climate.
They must say that cash crops were grown in the middle colonies, that slaves were used on large plantations in the south, and that there was subsistence farming in New England.
I think this might help.
Avian influenza (bird flu) has the potential to cause a healthcare crisis of unprecedented
global dimensions. Many predict a global pandemic far worse than the
1918 Spanish Flu, which killed 40 million to 50 million people. A larger, denser
global population, coupled with modern transportation systems of both goods and
people, could result in a pandemic killing far more people worldwide. The consequences
of such a pandemic would stretch beyond just public health. International
relations, commerce, politics, travel, medicine, and economic and social infrastructures
would be affected due to widespread infection and worldwide mitigation
efforts.
