I THINK it is answer choice A. Marbury V. Madison was about judicial review. Gideon V. Wainwright was about providing an attorney for the defendant who were unable to afford their own attorney. And please he versus Ferguson was about the separate but equal doctrine. So answer choice A is the only one that makes sense.
I cannot write the essay for you but I can give you an outline for one. What happened was, was that Rome suffered from a series; lineage of bad emperors who made bad decisions for its armies and bad decisions for its territories. Rome was in a state of decline for that reason. People were not satisfied with the condition Rome was in and this caused a reason for unrest which then caused another source of worry for the emperors. Furthermore, they were increasingly being attacked by foreign invaders first in small skirmishers and later in bigger ones until the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
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.
I don’t have idea but thank u for the points!
I only know question 1 and 2
The answer for question 1 is the last one and
Question 2 is the second one
