Who knows, life is confusing but so is history
The answer is D. Hope this helped :)
Pro slavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories; antislavery advocates argued that this gave slave holding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slave holding settlers.
Pro slavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
Pro slavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution; antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas’s state constitution.
Pro slavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820; antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott case.
Many people migrated from the North and East to the Sun Belt states during the 1950s because of the interstate highway system.
The question is asking to state or describe how both groups used land, and how their ways of life conflicted, and base on my research, I think the best way to explain it is that they have conflict on their interest of the resources found on each land of the Great Plains. I hope this would help
