Answer:
In 1debate over the issue, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay proposed another compromise. It had four parts: first, California would enter the Union as a free state; second, the status of slavery in the rest of the Mexican territory would be decided by the people who lived there; third, the slave trade (but not slavery) would be abolished in Washington, D.C.; and fourth, a new Fugitive Slave Act would enable Southerners to reclaim runaway slaves who had escaped to Northern states where slavery was not allowed.
Bleeding Kansas
But the larger question remained unanswered. In 1854, Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas proposed that two new states, Kansas and Nebraska, be established in the Louisiana Purchase west of Iowa and Missouri. According to the terms of the Missouri Compromise, both new states would prohibit slavery because both were north of the 36º30’ parallel. However, since no Southern legislator would approve a plan that would give more power to “free-soil” Northerners, Douglas came up with a middle ground that he called “popular sovereignty”: letting the settlers of the territories decide for themselves whether their states would be slave or free.
Northerners were outraged: Douglas, in their view, had caved to the demands of the “slaveocracy” at their expense. The battle for Kansas and Nebraska became a battle for the soul of the nation. Emigrants from Northern and Southern states tried to influence the vote. For example, thousands of Missourians flooded into Kansas in 1854 and 1855 to vote (fraudulently) in favor of slavery. “Free-soil” settlers established a rival government, and soon Kansas spiraled into civil war. Hundreds of people died in the fighting that ensued, known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
A decade later, the civil war in Kansas over the expansion of slavery was followed by a national civil war over the same issue. As Thomas Jefferson had predicted, it was the question of slavery in the West–a place that seemed to be the emblem of American freedom–that proved to be “the knell of the union.”
In the persuasion elaboration likelihood model, the central route is more persuasive when people have the ability and the motivation to pay attention. Persuasion is formed through two routes:
The peripheral route is used when people's motivation is low and there is no ability to process the message. The central route is used when there is high motivation and message processing capacity.
Therefore, the attitudes formed in the central route are more consistent, and resistant to contrary arguments, and more likely to determine people's behaviors and attitudes, generating changes in attitudes and durability.
Learn more here:
brainly.com/question/7147946
<span>These
three personalities were negatively abused/exploited in social media. Oscar
Pistorius was accused in social media that He killed His wife. His reputation
was destroyed by the netizens giving false accusations towards Him. For Caster Semanya’s case, her gender was
questioned by foreign media and has a great effect on the athlete’s record.
While the fans of Itumeleng Khune bashed the athlete through social media by failing
to stop penalties in the Nedbank Cup. This situation lead to negative comments
and anger from people arise.</span>
We tend to put information into Schema, which are ways of knowing that affect how we view our social world.
A schema, also known as a schemata or a schema, is an organizational pattern of thought or behavior that classifies types of information and the connections between them. As a system of organizing and interpreting new information, such as a mental schema or conceptual model, it can alternatively be described as a mental structure of preconceived notions, a framework representing a certain element of the social world, or a framework.
Schema have an impact on attention and the assimilation of incoming information: people are more likely to notice items that fit into their schema, while reinterpreting inconsistencies to the schema as exceptions or distorting them to fit.
To know more about Schema
brainly.com/question/27965727
#SPJ4
The tables were written down to settle a social conflict between the patricians (the ruling class) and the plebeians. Both were trying to have advantage in this conflict using different means, and it was felt that a proper procedure in such conflich, which would ensure a stabilisation in the country, as no more such chaotic conflicts would take place.
