1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
KonstantinChe [14]
3 years ago
11

Why was the compromise of 1850 considered a cause of the Civil War? ​

History
1 answer:
svlad2 [7]3 years ago
7 0

<em>The south gained by the strengthening of the fugitive slave law, the north gained a new free state, California. Texas lost territory but was compensated with 10 million dollars to pay for its debt. Slave trade was prohibited in Washington DC, but slavery was not.</em>

You might be interested in
Became powerful and corrupt
ExtremeBDS [4]

Answer:

lmknl

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
The right to vote<br><br>abdicate<br>deficit spending<br>plebiscite<br>sans-culottes<br>suffrage
Fynjy0 [20]
Suffrage, i had this class last year.
5 0
3 years ago
PLEASE PLEASE HELP ME PLEASE
Umnica [9.8K]

Answer:

b, paintings and sculptures had more realistic human figures

3 0
3 years ago
TRUE OR FALSE: President Jackson easily won the second Presidential election he entered.
cestrela7 [59]

Answer:

true

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
3 Points
REY [17]

Answer:

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that the Constitution of the United States was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and therefore the rights and privileges it confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.[2][3] The decision was made in the case of Dred Scott, an enslaved black man whose owners had taken him from Missouri, which was a slave-holding state, into the Missouri Territory, most of which had been designated "free" territory by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When his owners later brought him back to Missouri, Scott sued in court for his freedom, claiming that because he had been taken into "free" U.S. territory, he had automatically been freed, and was legally no longer a slave. Scott sued first in Missouri state court, which ruled that he was still a slave under its law. He then sued in U.S. federal court, which ruled against him by deciding that it had to apply Missouri law to the case. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Which crops were the main reason slavery became part of the colonial economy?
    15·2 answers
  • A trade network is a system of people in different lands who trade goods back and forth. What conclusion can you draw about the
    7·2 answers
  • In your own words, compare justice and mercy. Use complete sentences.
    8·1 answer
  • Read the text passage, an excerpt from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and answer the following:
    6·1 answer
  • What taught that if each person does his or her duty society as whole will do well
    9·1 answer
  • Who was on the committee to write the declaration of independence?
    9·1 answer
  • What people group was NOT targeted for extermination by the Germans? Homosexuals Gypsies Aryans Handicapped
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following was not a reason why French explorers settled in North America
    12·2 answers
  • Why do you think black life’s matter is important ?
    12·1 answer
  • I need help with this.
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!