Explain Northern and Confederate expectations about the duration of the civil war

The North was characterized by the development of a strong industry, defender of free wage labor and composed of a strong urban middle class. The South, on the other hand, had a basically agricultural economy, focused on cotton production in the plantation system, with extensive use of slave labor.

President Abraham Lincoln maintained an ambiguous stance on slavery, as he was an advocate for the abolition of slavery, but he believed that the "white race" was naturally "superior". In addition, Lincoln stated that he would not abolish slavery where it already existed and defended its maintenance exclusively in the South, that is, it was against its expansion into new territories, such as Kansas. Lincoln's stance received criticism from both sides: northerners considered him to be very conservative, while southerners considered him to be a radical abolitionist, even though Lincoln adopted conciliatory measures.

At the beginning of the conflict, the North had a large advantage over the South: the northerners had a larger military contingent, a much more developed economy and better infrastructure. Despite this, the southerners were highly optimistic in their capabilities. In addition, the southerners had the leadership of important military strategists, such as General Robert E. Lee.

The American Civil War was the worst conflict in the history of the United States. The battles carried out in the open field turned into real massacres, with thousands of soldiers dying, for example, in the Battle of Gettysburg, in which about 30 thousand southerners died in a few days of confrontation.

explanation:

pay attention. give the speaker your undivided attention, and acknowledge the message.

show that you're listening. use your own body language and gestures to show that you are engaged.

provide feedback.

defer judgment.

respond appropriately.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )