Answer: The correct order of these events will be the following:
1. The British captured Savannah and Charleston.
2. Nathanael Greene divided his troops to tire the British.
3. Patriot and French forces blockaded and besieged Yorktown.
4. Officials from Britain and the United States signed the Treaty of Paris.
Explanation: Here I am going to provide the years when these events happened to explain the order:
1. 1778.
2. 1781.
3. 1781.
4. 1784.
Answer:
I could litteraly say anything and it wouldn't be true.
Explanation:
Please give me some options to pick from or something.
Answer: War is not only about the military but also about the resources.
Explanation:
- War is not just about fighting on the battlefield. It requires some economic investment, so this is one of the more essential factors. The Union initially chose an offensive strategy that entailed attacks on the Confederacy's three territories backed by economic pressures. The Union also had a strong navy, so blocking the coast for the opposing side was a powerful blow to their economy. This strategy entailed a slow economic weakening of the opponents, which was ultimately crucial in the war.
- The Confederacy was in an awkward position; they wanted to retain the right to secession. Their efforts to invade the North are a very thankless situation. The developed North, with infrastructure, could quickly move an army from one place to another. In that case, the Confederation had to agree to the fact that the North decides the time and place of the battle, which is an advantage at the outset. The Confederacy deployed troops along the borders, which contributed to the dispersal of the army. It acted offensively when the opportunity arose for such a manoeuvre. One example of offensive action is the attempt to conquer Colorado mines, which failed.
- Such a constellation of relations contributed to the North's commitment to war. Developed industry, infrastructure, and economic blockade of the south are crucial factors in the victory of the North over the south.
This is one of those questions that is near impossible to answer.
The best I can give you, based upon my reading, is that it is likely that slavery would have continued for quite a while longer. Over time, though, it would have held a diminished role in society as the South industrialized. The advent of the assembly line would have further pushed the decline.
Holding slaves was a morally bankrupt AND expensive endeavor. For a long time, the cost benefit analysis for slave owners was that they could get years of work out of a person without wages. Eventually, with technology, this would have made the institution less of a good "investment," combined with moral pressure as most of the Western world divested itself from slavery.
So, you'd likely see a more pronounced version of our de facto slavery with migrant farm workers in the United States.
Answer: by wow lives of people
Explanation: i don’t knowI jus want points
