the first one is probably the "true-est", however not entirely.
the U.S. economy was a disaster after the war.
2007-07-08 10:12:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by daddio 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first one. Though I don't know how you can say "many cities were in ruins," as there were neither many nor ruined American cities.
As to the second, the economy was very weak because of the lack of a unified currency and heavy American war debts. The British military was far from complete collapse, though its capacity to mount offensive operations in the newly-formed United States was vastly diminished.
Currency was hyper-inflated because of multiple currencies and overprinting of paper money in response to war debts. Cities were not booming until the Industrial Revolution reached the United States, and, until 1920, most Americans lived in rural areas.
Taxes were high, necessitated by heavy war debts, and the currency was, as previously explained, far from "sound."
2007-07-08 17:49:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Clifton 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Number one is the closest to being correct. It you are going to use this as a closing statement on a research paper or report you might want to make a few minor changes to say something more in the line of:
The economy was in ruins (or shambles) with each colony having it's own currency. The British were still a powerful presence on the seas interdicting American shipping at will.
2007-07-08 17:35:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by JUAN FRAN$$$ 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I would say no. 1 was the closest. The British could have tried to stay and fight, but was at war with the then superpower France on 4 other fronts. Taxes and foreclosure befell many soldiers on the return from war, and it was Geo. Washington they looked to, and who help to get our tax system and economy back on track.
2007-07-12 16:40:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Homer S. 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
any given region could be described as any one of the above. We did not have a central economy as we do now
read
"A Few Bloody Noses" by Harvey for a better understanding of the revolution
2007-07-08 17:12:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd say the first answer is most correct. The british simply had other, more important matters to deal with in Europe, especially France.
2007-07-08 17:17:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by figaro1912 3
·
0⤊
0⤋