<span>Buchanan believed that slavery was wrong while also claiming that states did not have the right of succession. As the North and South adamantly debated whether slavery was illegal and immoral or legal and ethical, Buchanan admitted that there were certain grievenances that would make the succession justified, but then he condemed the act of slavery, saying that it was unconstitutional adn that the Founder Fathers never intended to endow any group of people with the right to enslave another group of people. But in a surprising turn, he said that if the succession was renamed to be called a revolution, then it would be acceptable because then, it would fail to call for the enforcement of a constituional right, and it also seperated the government from the requirement of giving the succession recognition. So in effect, Buchannan hindered the succession by declaring the right to a secession to be null and void, but failed to denouce slavery because he also defended the excuses that the sourtherns were using to threaten the secession in the first place. The postition he took angered both the people of the North and South. In the end, the Battle of Fort Sumter commenced and the South excercised their right to sucession after all.</span>
Answer:
This statement is TRUE
Explanation:
Plain Indian clothing such as war bonnet or also called headdresses, were used by the male inidians during war and now a days they used them for ceremonial ocassions.
This heardresses were meant for the head leaders that had a respected and admire place among the tribe. They were made of feathers.
To keep African Americans powerless and under control
Both allow citizens to vote for members of legislature
The British Isles have experienced a long history of migration from Europe. The ancient migrations have come via two routes: along the Atlantic coast and from Germany–Scandinavia. The first settlements came in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods. The earliest evidence of human presence in Ireland is dated to 10,500 BC.[1][2][3]
Research into this prehistoric settlement is controversial, with differences of opinion in many academic disciplines. There have been disputes over the sizes of the migrations and whether they were peaceful. In the latter part of the second millennium, the finds of archaeology allowed a view of the settlement pattern to be inferred from changes in artefacts. Since the 1990s the use of DNA has allowed this view to be refined.
