Answer:
The piece of evidence that would best support the claim that "all new territories to the US should decide for themselves whether they will be slave or free" is the Compromise of 1850, that established the precedent that new territories would choose for themselves whether to be slave or free.
Explanation:
The Compromise of 1850 was an agreement between the different states of the United States regarding the status with which the different territories obtained after the war with Mexico would enter the Union. The question was whether these states would be free or slave, and how this would affect the balance between the two groups of states in Congress. Finally, through this agreement California was admitted as a free state, while Utah and New Mexico could define their status through popular sovereignty. The most important part of this agreement was the acceptance of popular sovereignty as the defining method of determining the status of the states against slavery. This would be applied again after the sanction of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would lead to a prelude to the Civil War in the event known as Bleeding Kansas.
A socialist principle would be that there should be no classes at all in a society and that governments should regulate the production and distribution of goods in the best interest of the people.
Mark Antony expertly used rhetoric, or the language of persuasion, to provoke the Roman crowd into a riot. Antony was a very powerful speaker who held the attention of mass audiences.
Answer:
The Nullification Crisis was a result of the enactment of the protective tariff act which those in the south feel is mainly against them
Explanation:
The Nullification Crisis was a result of the enactment of the protective tariff act which those in the south feel is mainly against them. This nullification resulted in crisis and protest by the southerners in areas like Carolina.
It must, however, be noted that the Nullification act or law was the act that allows state law to override federal law. The act law was pushed forward by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798 and 1799 in the congress.
Moreover, John C. Calhoun was the one who singlehandedly pushed for the abolition of the Nullification law based on some issues.
He states that the law was mainly in the interest of those manufacturing states which are densely populated in the North unlike in the South who are mainly into agricultural farming.
That the law was set up mainly to accrue revenue to the government with no form of protection
It must be noted that after several protests by the Southerners, the tax was reduced.
The difference between ensuring domestic tranquility and providing common defense is related to the scope of events. In a situation of ensuring domestic tranquility, the US government has a duty to maintain peace within the country's borders.
Providing common defense refers to plans and actions to keep the nation safe from foreign threats, through an effective national army ready to defend the country under any circumstances.
<h3 /><h3>What is the need to promote national security?</h3>
It is essential for the maintenance of a safe country, where each citizen has their human and civil rights protected, by measures and actions of the country's leaders in favor of peace and the quality of life of its citizens.
Therefore, ensuring domestic tranquility and providing common defense are duties of the government of a country, which must be ready to protect the country from threats that jeopardize its security and sovereignty.
Find out more about National Security here:
brainly.com/question/25375059
#SPJ1
