Which factors led to the end of the Siege of Port Hudson? Check all that apply. The Union did not have enough troops to continue fighting.
There was a lack of food, ammunition, and other supplies.
Harsh weather conditions were hard on the troops on both sides.
The Confederates did not want to keep fighting after Vicksburg fell.
The Union realized they could not control the Mississippi River.

switch around #3 and #4

explanation:

i hope this , im not 100% on this i really hoped this

isolationism is a doctrine practiced by the united states for much of its history with the aim of not intervening in external affairs that did not pose a real threat to their country. the united states managed to maintain a state of political isolation throughout the nineteenth century and the first part of the xx. few nations have been able to maintain such a position for such a long period of time. historians argue that it is largely due to geographical reasons, given the physical distance between europe and the usa. uu the venataja of this situation is that the national state can spend its resources in satisfying all the needs of its inhabitants, without the need to invest in armament and equipment for a war that does not directly affect the country.

internationalism is a political and cultural movement that advocates for greater political and economic cooperation among nations for mutual benefit. this novimiento was transformed over time, today it includes military intervention in international conflicts with the objective of maintaining peace. the advantage of this move is in the international contacts and the influence developed by the country that carries it forward.

between the two modes of relations between states, i prefer the first, since i believe it is of the utmost importance to satisfy the needs of citizens and work for their development and as a last option to act on the international level.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is

the answer is that the political parties encourage people to caste vote.