I would say:
<span>-low population growth and lack of education
</span><span>-high labor cost and reliance on a single crop for export
</span>
i hope you do well!
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.
Answer:
It wasn't long before angry colonists joined him and insulted him and threatened violence. At some point, White fought back and struck a colonist with his bayonet.
The United States, Great Britain, France and Japan.
Answer:
a) To ensure freedom from control by elected officials
Explanation:
Constitutionally (Article III), federal judges are appointed for life. The Constitution gives federal judges employment security so they may resolve cases without public or political pressure. Even if they make unfavorable judgments, federal judges can only be impeached.
They are sheltered from the political process yet being young and inexperienced encourages judges to remain on the bench long after good reason would have retired them. According to Eastman and UT professor Stephen Vladeck, term restrictions might diminish independence and let money influence the system. If judges were obliged to retire at 60, some industry or interest may have employed them later.
