Answer: Because each state was looking out for its personal interests in regard to representation in Congress.
Details:
The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise both focused on the representation of states in Congress. Both of these compromises were devised during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787.
- The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states. 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.
Answer:
In 1638 Anne Hutchinson was kicked out of Boston for “antinomianism.”
So Anne Hutchinson’s view says good character is not necessary for salvation. This is to be “anti-nonmain” — “against law.” The opposite is to make law central — “legalism.” Legalism goes the opposite way and says good character is what is necessary for salvation. But then how good do you have to be? Is anyone really good enough? Can anyone conform to law enough? Perhaps not. No one is perfect. People have weaknesses, secret needs and habits. So we may need some “antinomianism.” If you aren’t good enough but get the benefit anyway, that’s called forgiveness. It seems like forgiveness must be required to go to heaven. Forgiveness negates the necessity of the law. It says you didn’t follow the law properly but it’s okay. If in reality we’re all a bunch of greedy , then we might need a bit of antinomianism to go to heaven. This fundamental problem of Christian religion goes all the way back to the founding and continues today. It’s an inherent logical problem of Christian faith.
Explanation:
Answer: B a hurricane has devastated a small country whose government is actively hostile to most other countries. [A P E X]
Explanation:
Many victims of the Palmer Raids treated poorly.
hopes this helps
A. I hope this helped I am pretty sure this is the answer
