It was John Tyler.
Tyler's opponents regularly called him "His Accidency" and addressed correspondences to him as "Vice President" or "Acting President" (letters which he returned unopened).
When his term ended in 1845, he did not seek election.
Congress was split, as the French had helped the young United States during the Revolutionary War, however, many where confused what direction the revolution was going (spoiler alert, the French Revolution traded a monarchy for a dictatorship with Napoleon at the helm - so it didin't accomplish a whole lot).
Although both parties(the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists) had different hopes for the french revolution, they both agreed that war would be economically not possible and would possibly open the U.S up to attack, so the U.S remained neutral.
Sahara.<span>Namib.</span><span>The Kalahari Desert.</span><span>Thar Desert.</span><span>Gobi Desert.</span>
A debate from the perspective of a Northerner over Missouri Statehood would be one talking about the importance of limiting slavery.
A argument from a Southerner would be one arguing that Northerners should allow slavery in states that want slavery.
<h3>What were the arguments for Missouri Statehood?</h3>
Missouri wanted to gain admission into the Union as a slave state and the North did not want this because they were against slavery spreading to other parts of the Union.
Southerners on the other hand, wanted slavery in Missouri as they believed that it would increase the power of slave states in Congress. They therefore argued that territories such as Missouri that wanted slavery, should be free to have slavery.
Find out more on Missouri Statehood at brainly.com/question/1855671.
