During the bleeding Kansas situation, C. President Pierce wanted Kansas to become a slave state, but Congress did not.
The term Bleeding Kansas was popularized by the New York Tribune. It referred to the civil confrontations caused by the argument whether to be a slave state or a free state between 1855 and 1861. It included electoral frauds, assaults and raids carried out by pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" and anti-slavery "Free-staters". The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 established that each state would have popular sovereignty in the subject of slavery, this meaning that the settlers had the right to choose and enact whatever government. Several governments were enacted, pro and anti slavery ones, which didn't recognize each other, and four constitutional drafts were passed, until the final one approved by the U.S Congress in 1861, which established Kansas as a free state.
Answer:
It’s not a water tight segregation.
Explanation:
India decided to adopt the policy of separation of religion and state in order to allow everybody in the country choose any religion they wanted to belong to. This is one of the reason why they ensured the country doesn’t have any specific religion attached to it. This helped in the prevention of any type of segregation as a result of religious differences in the country.
It was to take back their land. This was the war between them and it was called The Indian Wars. It resulted from competition for resources and land ownership as Europeans, Americans and Canadians invaded a territory which had been inhabited by Native Americans.<span> </span>
<span>The word “oligarchy” and the concepts which it symbolizes originated in ancient Greece. In its basic use, the word identified one of the general forms of government recognized by the Greeks: that in which political government is conducted by a few persons or families. It was also used more narrowly, by Aristotle for example, to refer to the debased form of aristocracy, that is, to government by the few or by a faction. The term “oligarchy” was also used to refer to the small group of persons who enjoyed a monopoly of political control in oligarchic governments; the term usually had the added sense that the oligarchy ruled in its own rather than in the public interest. For Aristotle, classification of governments rested on two independent variables: the number of persons who ruled and the purposes served by their rule. Oligarchy was present when a few persons ruled for their own satisfaction.</span>
I believe it is the 2nd option.... "Its political system cannot be easily changed.
