Answer: A. a disagreement between the states over representation in Congress.
The main disagreement was over whether representation would be the same for all states, or based on a state's population size. Then there was also a question, for basing representation on population size, about whether slaves counted in a state's population or not.
The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise were worked out during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787 in order to resolve these issues.
- The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. Initially, a unicameral (one-chamber) legislature was envisioned. The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size. The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation. The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature. Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population. In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
- The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery. For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures. (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.) The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
Each state had to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution is the correct answer. Good job.
The correct answer to fill in the blank is the Calvinist(Huguenots)
hope this help and is what your looking for.
B if you look back in the history books
Answer:In short, the British treated their colonies in vastly different ways, both across different regions and within the same colonies over time.
The British Empire was never a consistent empire. Across various colonies, there were different raisons d’être and methods of organization for each one. Even within America, different Colonies were founded for entirely different reasons. Virginia started out as a mercantile colony run by a company; Massachusetts was originally a Puritan theocracy; New York was a crown colony taken over from the Dutch; and Maryland and Pennsylvania were religiously tolerant colonies governed by (relatively) benign hereditary feudal rulers (called proprietors), the Barons Calvert and the Penn family. South Carolina, with its rice and indigo plantations, was more akin to a Caribbean colony than its continental neighbors.* At the same time that the American Colonies were emerging, the East India Company established outposts in India, and the Royal African Company did much the same in Africa. None of them were uniformly governed or similar in character; the British government occasionally took notice but generally was not involved in their governance.
Explanation: hi ;0
