Other than being defeated by the Union in the Civil War, do you think joining the Confederacy turned out as Texans expected? Please answer with complete sentences. Dont answer for points. If you dont actually answer an put something random you will be reported..

Texas declared its secession from the Union on February 1, 1861, and joined the Confederate States on March 2, 1861, after it had replaced its governor, Sam Houston, who had refused to take an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy. As with those of other states, the Declaration of Secession was not recognized by the US government at Washington, DC. Some Texan military units fought in the Civil War east of the Mississippi River, but Texas was more useful for supplying soldiers and horses for the Confederate Army. Texas's supply role lasted until mid-1863, when Union gunboats started to control the Mississippi River, which prevented large transfers of men, horses, or cattle. Some cotton was sold in Mexico, but most of the crop became useless because of the Union's naval blockade of Galveston, Houston, and other ports.

Explanation:   so yes i do

Both the Union and the Confederacy had things going for them, and things working strongly against them. Ultimately the north was victorious and slavery was abolished from the United States, as well as the Confederacy. and the major thing that the Confederacy lacked was leadership

Explanation:

the caste system in india is the paradigmatic ethnographic example of caste. it has origins in ancient india, and was transformed by various ruling elites in medieval, early-modern, and modern india, especially the mughal empire and the british raj.it is today the basis of educational and job reservations in india.it consists of two different concepts, varna and jati, which may be regarded as different levels of analysis of this system.

the caste system as it exists today is thought to be the result of developments during the collapse of the mughal era and the british colonial regime in india. the collapse of the mughal era saw the rise of powerful men who associated themselves with kings, priests and ascetics, affirming the regal and martial form of the caste ideal, and it also reshaped many apparently casteless social groups into differentiated caste communities.the british raj furthered this development, making rigid caste organisation a central mechanism of administration

i didn’t fully understand your question but i hope this you !