Divisions over slavery in territory gained in the Mexican-American (1846-48). War was resolved in the Compromise of 1850. It consisted of laws admitting California as a free state, creating Utah and New Mexico territories with the question of slavery in each to be determined by popular sovereignty, settling a Texas-New Mexico boundary dispute in the former’s favor, ending the slave trade in Washington, D.C., and making it easier for southerners to recover fugitive slaves. <span><span>Play videoSound Smart: Compromise of 18502min</span><span>Play videoWhat Was the Missouri Compromise?3min</span><span>Play videoSound Smart: The Kansas-Nebraska Act2min</span></span> <span>The compromise was the last major involvement in national affairs of Senators Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, all of whom had had exceptional careers in the Senate. Calhoun died the same year, and Clay and Webster two years later.<span>Did You Know?One of the legislative bills that were passed as part of the Compromise of 1850 was a new version of the Fugitive Slave Act.</span>At first, Clay introduced an omnibus bill covering these measures. Calhoun attacked the plan and demanded that the North cease its attempts to limit slavery. By backing Clay in a speech delivered on March 7, Webster antagonized his onetime abolitionist supporters. Senator William H. Seward of New York opposed to compromise and earned an undeserved reputation for radicalism by claiming that a “higher law” than the Constitution required the checking of slavery. President Zachary Taylor opposed the compromise, but his death on July 9 made procompromise vice president Millard Fillmore of New York president. Nevertheless, the Senate defeated the omnibus bill.Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois then split the omnibus proposal into individual bills so that congressmen could abstain or vote on each, depending on their interests. They all passed, and Fillmore signed them. The compromise enabled Congress to avoid sectional and slavery issues for several years.</span>
Franz ferdinand was in a way a set up, it was meant to start the war, some people were trying to get "revenge" and do it in a way were the spot light wouldnt be on them
It depends on your definition of hero, I guess. The fact that Gandhi and MLK did not use force to advocate for their opinions was mature and moral. They did not give up the first time. But maybe if the cause is correct, one might have to break the stated law, and become a hero.
Perhaps you could look to some wars online? Research is important. You could do the Cold War, or World War I/II, or the Great Depression. Just some tips. :)
