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.
It had the capability of influencing their relationship with those places. They wanted to or felt the need to spread their religion, as it could promote trade within those places.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached, we can say the following.
States in Europe exercised power differently from states in Asia or Africa in the period 1200-1450 because the form of government in Europe was the monarchy. An absolute form of government in which the King was the most powerful figure in the kingdom and wanted more territories to conquer to demonstrate his power and dominion over other nations.
Something similar happened in Asia or Africa with the Mali Empire or the Majapahit Empire. Instead of a king, there was an Emperor who was the ruler of the land and expect total loyalty from subjects.
One of the main differences between both styles was that, in the case of Europe, Kings ordered their navy to explore and navigate the seas in order to find better trade routes and new territories to conquer to strengthen the power of the king. That is how European superpowers such as Spain, Great Britain, Portugal, and France, competed in the Age of Exploration.
I believe that it was the U.S army
