PLS HELP ME! DUE NOW! **BRAINLIEST** 15PTS How did the strategies of the Union and Confederacy differ during the Civil War? In your response, be sure to include the tactical and technological innovations as well as the impact the strategies had on the outcome of the war.

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.

wood carving remains today the primary sculptural art form of the sub saharan continent. african art history shows the earliest wooden sculptures from the 17th c are attributed to the kuba, central zaire but the earliest surviving sub-saharan sculpture is a zoomorphic head found in 1928 in central angola.

i hope this .

for starters, there is the structural trend of rising primary government expenditure as a share of gdp, which reached 36% in 2014, up from 22% in 1991. this increase reflected a political desire to address the poverty and inequality that had gone unaddressed during previous decades. to support the increase, brazil’s government increased taxes on consumption and promoted progress toward labor-market formalization. nonetheless, public investment, particularly in infrastructure, took a hit. in fact, with the exception of the 2005-2008 period, total investment as a share of gdp has remained below 20% since 1991.