Answer:
1. eleven
2. Missouri
3. Henry Clay
4. maine
5. Missouri Compromise
6. California
7. Texas
8. Wilmot Proviso
9. Mexico
10. John C. Calhoun
11. slavery
12. Free-soil
Explanation:
In 1819, Congressman James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York initiated an uproar in the South when he proposed two amendments to an account admitting Missouri to the Union as a free state. The first banned slaves from moving to Missouri, and the second would free all Missouri slaves born after admission to the Union at the age of 25. With the admission of Alabama as a slave state in 1819, the United States was equally divided with 11 slave states and 11 free states. The admission of the new state of Missouri as a slave state would give the slave a majority in the Senate; the Tallmadge Amendment would give the free states a majority.
The Tallmadge amendments passed the House of Representatives, but failed in the Senate when five Northern Senators voted with all the southern senators. The question was now the admission of Missouri as a slave state, and many leaders shared Thomas Jefferson's fear of a crisis over slavery - a fear that Jefferson described as "a fire bell at night." The crisis was solved by the 1820 Commitment, which admitted Maine to the Union as a free state at the same time that Missouri was admitted as a slave state. The Commitment also prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Purchase territory north and west of the state of Missouri along the 36–30 line. The Missouri Commitment calmed the issue until its limitations of slavery were repealed by the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854.
In the South, the Missouri crisis aroused old fears again that a strong federal government could be a fatal threat to slavery. The Jeffersonian coalition that united southern planters and northern farmers, mechanics and artisans in opposition to the threat posed by the Federalist Party had begun to dissolve after the war of 1812. Only in the Missouri crisis did the Americans realize of the political possibilities of a sectional attack against slavery, and only in the mass policy of the Jackson Administration this type of organization around this issue became practical.
In the early days of British colonization, the British gave the colonists a lot of self governing powers and autonomy, and it remained this way for several years. However, when King George III took power he tightened the grip on their colonies a lot more, which created some tensions. One big thing was after the French and Indian War, the British heavily taxed the colonists with things like the Stamp Act because it has cost the British government a lot of money to defend the colonies in the. This angered a lot of colonists because they were getting taxed without consent in that they have no representation in Parliament. Although other British colonies also did not have representation, the colonists felt that they were just as valid as British citizens as those in GB, so they were angry that they had to pay all these taxes without agreeing to them. Hence the phrase "no taxation without representation"
Santa Anna rejected the state constitution
Answer:
I hope it helps u.
Explanation:
Arms races have generated a great deal of interest for a variety of reasons. They are widely believed to have significant consequences for states' security, but agreement stops there. In the debate over their consequences, one side holds that arms races increase the probability of war by undermining military stability and straining political relations. The opposing view holds that engaging in an arms race is often a state's best option for avoiding war when faced with an aggressive adversary. Debate over the causes of arms races is just as divided. One school believes that arms races are primarily rational responses to external threats and opportunities, whereas arms race skeptics believe that arms buildups are usually the product of a mixture of internal, domestic interests, including those of the scientists involved in research and development (R&D), the major producers of weapons systems, and the military services that will operate them. The policy implications of these contending views are equally contradictory; critics see arms control as a way to reduce the probability of war and rein in domestic interests that are distorting the state's security policy, and proponents argue that military competition is most likely to protect the state's international interests and preserve peace.
Arms buildups and arms races also play a prominent role in international relations (IR) theory. Building up arms is one of a state's three basic options for acquiring the military capabilities it requires to achieve its international goals; the other two are gaining allies and cooperating with its adversary to reduce threats. In broad terms, choosing between more competitive and more cooperative combinations of these options is among the most basic decisions a state must make, and it is often the most important.
Mark me as brainlist answer,
Have a nice day,
Thank you ☺
