Answer:
1. eleven
2. Missouri
3. Henry Clay
4. maine
5. Missouri Compromise
6. California
7. Texas
8. Wilmot Proviso
9. Mexico
10. John C. Calhoun
11. slavery
12. Free-soil
Explanation:
In 1819, Congressman James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York initiated an uproar in the South when he proposed two amendments to an account admitting Missouri to the Union as a free state. The first banned slaves from moving to Missouri, and the second would free all Missouri slaves born after admission to the Union at the age of 25. With the admission of Alabama as a slave state in 1819, the United States was equally divided with 11 slave states and 11 free states. The admission of the new state of Missouri as a slave state would give the slave a majority in the Senate; the Tallmadge Amendment would give the free states a majority.
The Tallmadge amendments passed the House of Representatives, but failed in the Senate when five Northern Senators voted with all the southern senators. The question was now the admission of Missouri as a slave state, and many leaders shared Thomas Jefferson's fear of a crisis over slavery - a fear that Jefferson described as "a fire bell at night." The crisis was solved by the 1820 Commitment, which admitted Maine to the Union as a free state at the same time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state. The Commitment also prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territory north and west of the state of Missouri along the 36–30 line. The Missouri Commitment calmed the issue until its limitations of slavery were repealed by the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854.
In the South, the Missouri crisis aroused old fears again that a strong federal government could be a fatal threat to slavery. The Jeffersonian coalition that united southern planters and northern farmers, mechanics and artisans in opposition to the threat posed by the Federalist Party had begun to dissolve after the war of 1812. Only in the Missouri crisis did the Americans realize of the political possibilities of a sectional attack against slavery, and only in the mass policy of the Jackson Administration this type of organization around this issue became practical.
Answer:
Your answer i c)The smaller states wanted to protect the interests of American Indians.
Hope it helps .Please mark me as the brainliest.
Explanation:
Why did the smaller states want the larger states to give up their claim on western territories? The smaller states couldn't conduct interstate commerce. The smaller states wanted the western lands to belong to all states. The smaller states wanted to protect the interests of American Indians.
Breaking down "nature of this covenant"...
<em>Nature</em> refers to the characteristics of the covenant
A<em> covenant </em>is an agreement, sort of like an informal contract
While you didn't provide us with Chapter 19, versus 5 and 6, reading the rest of the question it can be inferred God is telling the Israelites to "keep his covenant."
To answer the question "What is the nature of this covenant?" read the chapter and ask yourself the following questions:
Is God stern with the Israelites? Helpful? Angry? Happy? Does He feel bad for them? Does He take pity on them? Are they loyal to God?
Does God get more out of the covenant than the Israelites do? Who does the covenant benefit more?
How do the Israelites feel about the covenant? How do they feel about their current situation in general? Does the convenant calm them? Inspire them?