<span>No. "In the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may be justly pronounced the very definition of tyranny..."</span>
create a heroic out look on the war, and encurage more men to fight in the war.
Answer:
I believe the answer is true.
Hope this helps, have a great day, and stay safe!
Britain needed to resolve a conflict between the principles of free trade (which Britain was more and more adopting) and the institution of slavery.
Concerns about slave revolts indeed were indeed part of Britain's pragmatic decisions to end its participation in the slave trade in 1807 and phasing out slavery in its empire starting in 1834. But the other factor was that the Industrial Revolution was taking over how the British economy operated, and the institution of slavery no longer fit within the new, industrializing economy.
Along with those practical reasons, there was of course much moral pressure applied by the abolitionist movement. William Wilberforce was a key voice of conscience in Parliament from the moral side of the argument.
The 21st amendment is the only constitutional amendment that was ratified by approval of conventions in 3/4 of the states.
