Social Studies, 18.05.2021 17:40 floobrr5

Recall that the battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg were turning points for the North and helped it attain victory in the Civil War. Now, let’s play a game called “What if?” What if the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, forcing the North to give up in 1863? What might the North American continent have looked like five years after the war's end? What would it have looked like after 25 years? What changes would you have seen after 100 years? Use background information to support your opinion. ( please paragraphs )

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

If General James Longstreet had commanded the Confederate forces at Gettysburg instead of Lee the Confederacy might very well have won the Civil War.
The outcome of a Confederate victory would have been the break up of the United States but not quite as President Jeff Davis wanted. The Confederacy was never a country, which is obvious from its name. The Southern states were allied by expediency but were as disparate among each other as they were with the North. It is difficult to see how they would have formed an alternative long term Confederate States.
The Confederacy could not have occupied the North and had no intention to do so. The invasion of the North by the Army of Northern Virginia was tactical, not strategic and the Southern Government's intention was to sue for peace based on a rather naive idea that capturing Washington would have ended the war.
If they had captured Lincoln and his government that might have happened, more likely though they would have decamped to another major Northern city before the Army of Northern Virginia got there.
Great question, I was looking forward to a debate on the Civil War!

Answer from: Quest

it should be c, women were allowed to vote in all states because federal law supersedes state law.

"states can make their own laws, as long as they don't contradict what the federal law states. the states do not have the authority to pass a law that negates a federal law." -google

Answer from: Quest

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown. taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.