The Government of the US discouraged foreign goods to protect domestic goods from foreign competition, using the government in which it chose to restrict the import of goods from foreign countries.
The major reasons for protecting the US from foreign goods are as follows:
1) The government wanted to protect domestic workers from losing their jobs. Free trade would have met the workers of the domestic country exposed to foreign competition, and consequently losing their jobs.
2) The government wanted to protect small industries which mean small industries should be protected by imposing trade restrictions to give them a chance to grow and develop to become more competitive. These industries were now working at a very small stage and incompetent to face the Giants of the global economy.
3) The government wanted to restrict trade as it wanted to prevent the unfair trade practices which are caused due to free trade across the countries. Each country has its trade regulations which may be unfair for some countries. Such differences lead to unfair practices in the domestic market, and when such unfair practices are evident, government restrictions become mandatory.
4) Another important reason for imposing trade barriers was that the country wants to protect national security which is caused due to free trade. National insecurity is caused due to trade when a country becomes dependent upon other countries for the supply of materials or other important resources. When it comes to national security, it is important to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.
5) Finally, trade barriers are introduced by the government for reducing the bargaining in negotiations which are caused due to foreign competition, and restriction becomes an evident asset to reduce such trade negotiations. The bargaining power of the domestic industries is greatly harmed due to foreign competition in such cases government interference becomes necessary for the protection of such industries.
To know more about trade restrictions: brainly.com/question/7580546
William Wilberforce continued to work for the abolition of all slavery within the British Colonies. He joined the 'Society for Gradual Abolition' and, when the campaign intensified again in the 1820's and 30', he did as much as his failing health would allow.
Answer:
Britain --- won territory and expanded empire
France --- lost territory and influence
Spain --- gained territory but did not settle it
American colonies --- gained territory and sense of unity
American Indians --- could not keep promised territory
Explanation:
The French and Indian War was a military conflict developed between 1754 and 1763 in North America, between Britain and France, for control of the territories adjacent to the Great Lakes.
During this conflict, the French were aided by Native Americans and, to a lesser extent, by the Spanish. In turn, the bulk of the British combatants were American settlers.
The end result of this war was the total annexation of the French colonies in America by Great Britain, as well as the secession of Louisiana to Spain by France.
For the Americans, this war meant the creation of a strong and unifying national identity, while for the Native Americans it meant a great loss of power in their ancestral territories.
Answer:
<h2>Popular sovereignty was an unworkable solution for the territories of Kansas and Nebraska.</h2>
Explanation:
The Kansas-Nebraska Act enacted by Congress in 1854. It granted popular sovereignty to the people in the Kansas and Nebraska territories, letting them decide whether they'd allow slavery. In essence, this made the Kansas-Nebraska act a repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had said there would be no slavery north of latitude 36°30´ except for Missouri.
After the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed into Kansas to try to sway the outcome of the issue, and violence between the two sides occurred. The term "bleeding Kansas" was used because of the bloodshed that occurred in this situation. The move to make slavery a popular sovereignty matter proved to be unworkable and hurtful.
