The election of 1848 did nothing to quell the controversy over whether slavery would advance into the Mexican Cession. Some slaveholders, like President Taylor, considered the question a moot point because the lands acquired from Mexico were far too dry for growing cotton and therefore, they thought, no slaveholder would want to move there. Other southerners, however, argued that the question was not whether slaveholders would want to move to the lands of the Mexican Cession, but whether they could and still retain control of their slave property. Denying them the right to freely relocate with their lawful property was, they maintained, unfair and unconstitutional. Northerners argued, just as fervidly, that because Mexico had abolished slavery, no slaves currently lived in the Mexican Cession, and to introduce slavery there would extend it to a new territory, thus furthering the institution and giving the Slave Power more control over the United States. The strong current of antislavery sentiment—that is, the desire to protect white labor—only increased the opposition to the expansion of slavery into the West.
Answer:
The North American fur trade, an aspect of the international fur trade, was the acquisition, trade, exchange, and sale of animal furs in North America. Aboriginal peoples and Native Americans of various regions of the present-day countries of Canada and the United States traded among themselves in the pre–Columbian Era. Europeans participated in the trade from the time of their arrival to Turtle Island, commonly referenced as the New World, extending the trade's reach to Europe. The French started trading in the 16th century, the English established trading posts on Hudson Bay in present-day Canada during the 17th century, while the Dutch had trade by the same time in New Netherland. The North American fur trade reached its peak of economic importance in the 19th century, and involved the development of elaborate trade-networks.
The fur trade became one of the main economic ventures in North America, attracting competition among the French, British, Dutch, Spanish, Swedes and Russians. Indeed, in the early history of the United States, capitalizing on this trade, and removing the British stranglehold over it, was seen[by whom?] as a major economic objective. Many Native American societies across the continent came to depend on the fur trade[when?] as their primary source of income. By the mid-1800s changing fashions in Europe brought about a collapse in fur prices. The American Fur Company and some other companies failed. Many Native communities were plunged into long-term poverty and consequently lost much of the political influence they once had.
Explanation:
Answer:
The final of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Constitution largely to relieve tension and to assuage the fears of states’ rights advocates, who believed that the newly adopted Constitution would enable the federal government to run roughshod over the states and their citizens. While the Federalists, who advocated a strong central government, had in that respect prevailed with the ratification of the Constitution, it was essential to the integrity of the document and to the stability of the fledgling country to acknowledge the interests of the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry, who had unsuccessfully opposed the strong central government created by the Constitution.
Ramadan is your answer your welcome e
