Answer:
The Great Compromise was a compromise between large states and small states on the formation of a new constitution.
Explanation:
After American independence the Articles of Confederation resulted in many challenges in the smooth functioning of the state, and a convention was called to discuss the fomation of a new constitution also known as the Constitutional Convention 1987. Two alternatives were proposed: first was the Virginia Plan, and second the New Jersey Plan. According to the Virginia Plan there would be three branches of government namely legislature, executive and judiciary. Legislature would consist of two houses: upper and lower. And representation in these houses would be based on population. On the other hand the New Jersey Plan also proposed three branches of government. It, however, called for a single house legislature with powers of trade and taxation with each state having one vote. Small states opposed Virginia Plan; Virginia was a large state. Whereas large states opposed the New Jersey Plan; New Jersey was a small state. In the final plan a compromise was reached also known as the Great Compromise. According to the final plan the legislature would consist of two houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Each state would have equal members in Senate; in the House of Representatives the member would be based on population. The money bill would originate from House of Representative; this satisfied the large states. This plan also served the interests of small states by giving them more seats in upper house than they could otherwise have.
Answer:i think faltering economic system
Pro slavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories; antislavery advocates argued that this gave slave holding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slave holding settlers.
Pro slavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
Pro slavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution; antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas’s state constitution.
Pro slavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820; antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott case.
Answer:
yes.........................
and honey where on God's earth is the map?
