The political, economic, and military strength of the Union was much greater than that of the Confederacy. However, the war did last four years. The Confederacy proved itself resilient on many occasions. Throughout the war the tide constantly shifted, and with that so did the political, economic, and military strength of either side. Although each side had its share of military successes, in the end, the superior Northern economy, centralized government and overwhelming manpower would eventually lead to victory. In mid 1863, both the Union and the Confederacy could have won the war although; the Confederacy lacked the industry, or manpower to wage a long war with the Union.
The Union was far more industrialized than the South. The North possessed 80% of total U.S. industry. In addition, most Confederate industry was located in the Upper South-particularly in Virginia. The Confederacy lost a great deal of potential industry and manpower when West Virginia, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland joined the Union instead of the Confederacy. The loss of these states to the Union was as much a testament to shrewd northern politics (Maryland) as it was to opposition within the states (West Virginia). Confederate industry, especially with the loss of these states, was unable to compete with the Union.
In addition to the South's lack of industry, most capital was invested in slaves and land-both of these are non-liquid. The South's lack of a large supply of liquid capital made it difficult for Southerners to buy munitions for the war effort. As a result of the South's lack of liquid capital the North enjoyed a decided advantage..
Glad to help :)
-liyah❤
Answer:
The Constitution's Eighteenth Amendment
Explanation:
i hope this helped, it was also i think due to te manufacturing
Answer:
Most African Americans were sharecroppers after the civil war.
This was a system in which the landowner would allow them work a
piece of land and give them some of the crop produced.
Answer:
He was the first American to enter California from the east and return from it by an overland route. He was also a trader and explorer
Answer:
1.He was an Indian revolutionary leader. He was born in India and was married at the age of 13.He wanted to study medicine, but his father wanted him to study law. In 1888, he went to London to study law and became used to the English lifestyle. He went back to India in 1891 and failed in become a successful lawyer. In 1893, he went to Pretoria, South Africa to be a legal representative of a company. He faced racial discrimination in a train and was removed from the train by a white man. He was affected by the incident and he launched a movement for the better legal status of Indians living in South Africa. In 1977, he requested Indians to not to comply with the law of registration and fingerprint database of Indians, and was jailed for the same. He created commonwealth for resisting people and then adopted Indian attire, dhoti. His hard work paid by validation of Indian marriages in South Africa and abolition of tax on a former indentured Indian labor.He then returned to India and a voice that could reach and convince people. He insisted on using human labor instead of machines and also worked for bringing Hindus and Muslims together. He promoted Swadeshi and revolutionized for an independent India.
2.Everyone can use nonviolence as long that they do not take weapons. He believed it could achieve peace without going to war, or blood shed.
3. I'm not sure about this one but I hope I helped you enough
Read more on Webcache.googleusercontent.com - https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/question/10169219#readmore
Explanation:
hope this helps
sorry if it dont
