Here's what each of the events is in a basic rundown. I hope this helps
- The Missouri compromise banned slavery north of the 36th parallel (this didnt last long) while making Maine a free state and Missouri a slave state
- The compromise of 1850 abolished slave trade in Washington DC and made California a free state. (going against the Missouri compromise) It also allowed Utah and New Mexico to decide under popular sovereignty whether or not to be slave states (they didn't have much use for slaves because they couldn't grow much on plantations there) Slave trade was banned in the district of Columbia (but not the use of slaves itself) The law required law enforcement to capture and return fugitive slaves.
- The Kansas-Nebraska act allowed kansas and Nebraska to choose by popular sovereignty whether or not to be slave states (going against Missouri compromise)
- The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was about a slave that was taken from a slave state to a free territory and taken back to a slave state. He argued that he had been freed when he had been taken to the free territory. The court determined that "Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution" though black men could vote in 5 of the 13 states at that point. The case also ruled that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional and Congress cannot ban slavery in territories. It has to be decided at the ratification of the state. The case also ruled that slaves are not freed by being taken or escaping to a free territory.
- The Fugitive Slave Act required any captured, escaped slaves to be returned to their masters and it required officials and citizens of free states to cooperate. people caught helping slaves were punished and suspected slaves couldn't ask for jury trial or testify on their own behalf. Also, officials were required to make arrests based off as little as a sworn testimony of ownership. This resulted in kidnapping and forcing freed blacks into slavery on false claims.
Explanation:
In simpler words, the multi-part question is asking for you to first analyze the three sources, then pick a side and have knowledge to defend your point on the question 'to what extent should nations pursue their national interests'.
In source 1, it shows that the majority of Canadians are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, with 36% voting for, 5% unsure, and 59% voting against.
Source two is clearly depicting the nazi's, at a rally held in Nuremberg. Although the source does not state if the protesters are pro or against Nazi regime, I am assuming they are pro. This would lead to the assumption that the people of Nuremberg are pro-Nazi empire.
The source 3 is a timeline, that goes from 1920 to 2005. This time period is very significant, because it captures many important battles, such as world war 2, Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq invasion.
After reading these three sources, you must decide if you think it is good for nations to pursue their national interests, or bad.
Hope this long explanation helped clarify the troubling question for you!
Answer:
The answer is B
Explanation:
its pretty obvious if you know history
answer :
the money supply will decrease, meaning that banks will give fewer loans and prices for good and services will fall.
hope this helps !!
Answer:
The knowledge about interior of the earth is obtained through direct sources and indirect sources. Direct sources include rock materials from mining areas and molten magma from volcanic eruptions. Besides, scientists are working on “Deep Ocean drilling Project” and “Integrated Ocean Drilling Projection:
