The answer is both A and B. District courts of appeal and circuit courts.
Answer:
Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas or the Border War was a series of violent civil confrontations in the United States between 1854 and 1861 which emerged from a political and ideological debate over the legality of slavery in the proposed state of Kansas.
Result: Kansas admitted to the Union as a free ...
Location: Kansas and Missouri
Date: 1854–1861
Explanation:
Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas or the Border War was a series of violent civil confrontations in the United States between 1854 and 1861 which emerged from a political and ideological debate over the legality of slavery in the proposed state of Kansas. The conflict was characterized by years of electoral fraud, raids, assaults, and retributive murders carried out in Kansas and neighboring Missouri by pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" and anti-slavery "Free-Staters".
At the core of the conflict was the question of whether the Kansas Territory would allow or outlaw slavery, and thus enter the Union as a slave state or a free state. The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 called for popular sovereignty, requiring that the decision about slavery be made by the territory's settlers (rather than outsiders) and decided by a popular vote. Existing sectional tensions surrounding slavery quickly found focus in Kansas. Those in favor of slavery argued that every settler had the right to bring his own property, including slaves, into the territory. In contrast, while some "free soil" proponents opposed slavery on ethical and humanitarian grounds, at the time the most persuasive argument against introducing slavery in Kansas was that it would allow rich slaveholders to control the land, to the exclusion of white non-slaveholders who regardless of their moral inclinations did not have the means to acquire either slaves or sizable land holdings for themselves.
This is one of those questions that is near impossible to answer.
The best I can give you, based upon my reading, is that it is likely that slavery would have continued for quite a while longer. Over time, though, it would have held a diminished role in society as the South industrialized. The advent of the assembly line would have further pushed the decline.
Holding slaves was a morally bankrupt AND expensive endeavor. For a long time, the cost benefit analysis for slave owners was that they could get years of work out of a person without wages. Eventually, with technology, this would have made the institution less of a good "investment," combined with moral pressure as most of the Western world divested itself from slavery.
So, you'd likely see a more pronounced version of our de facto slavery with migrant farm workers in the United States.
Answer:Constitutional powers and responsibilities are divided between the U.S. federal and state governments. ... This means that if a state law clashes with a federal law found to be within the national government's constitutional authority, the federal law prevails.
Explanation:
