The answer is C) It prohibited slavery in most of the former Louisiana Territory except for Missouri.
Why is it C)? well its C) because the Missouri Compromise (1820) <span>prohibited slavery in most of the former Louisiana Territory except for Missouri.</span> Specifically, it prohibited slavery above 36°30'N. This was meant to prevent slavery from being an issue as new states was added, but this would not be the case.
<span>Sold their belongings to get a little money and moved to other towns or states.</span>
Answer:
On Good Friday 1865, actor-turned assassin John Wilkes Booth not only ended a great American life in progress, but made his victim -- Abraham Lincoln -- seem exponentially greater in death. Ever since the 16th president died, nine hours after Booth fired his fatal shot, American presidents have been judged against the myth that replaced the man. The savior of the union, great emancipator and martyr of liberty has proven an all but impossible act to follow.
Explanation:
Answer: b. It was an important Confederate city for storing goods and housing soldiers
Explanation: Atlanta played a major role in the Civil War because of its location and commercial importance, and as a growing city along the railroad, it was used as a military hub of operation and also as a supply route. What this entails is that soldiers were housed and goods were stored at Atlanta making it an important target for the opposition forces thus threatening the stability of the Confederacy.
After the Cold War ended, promoting the international spread of democracy seemed poised to replace containment as the guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy. Scholars, policymakers, and commentators embraced the idea that democratization could become America's next mission. In recent years, however, critics have argued that spreading democracy may be unwise or even harmful. This paper addresses this debate. It argues that the United States should promote democracy and refutes some of the most important arguments against U.S. efforts to spread democracy. After a brief discussion of definitions of democracy and liberalism, the paper summarizes the reasons why the spread of democracy— especially liberal democracy— benefits the citizens of new democracies, promotes international peace, and serves U.S. interests. Because the case for democratization is rarely made comprehensively, the paper explicates the arguments for why democracy promotes liberty, prevents famines, and fosters economic development. The logic and evidence of a democratic peace are also summarized, as are the ways in which U.S. security and economic interests would be advanced in a world of democracies. These benefits to U.S. interests include a reduction in threats to the United States, fewer refugees attempting to enter the United States, and better economic partners for American trade and investment. The paper then turns to a rebuttal of four prominent recent arguments against the benefits of spreading democracy: (1) the claim that the democratic peace is a myth; (2) the argument that the process of democratization increases the risk of war; (3) arguments that democratic elections are harmful in societies that are not fully liberal; and (4) claims that "Asian values" can undergird polities based on "soft authoritarianism" that are superior to liberal democracies. The paper argues that these recent critiques of U.S. efforts to promote democracy have not presented a convincing case that spreading democracy is a bad idea. The internationa spread of democracy will offer many benefits to new democracies and to the United States. The democratic peace proposition appears robust, even if scholars need to continue to develop multiple explanations for why democracies rarely, if ever, go to war. The evidence on whether democratization increases the risk of war is mixed, at best, and policies can be crafted to minimize any risks of conflict in these cases. The problem of "illiberal democracy" has been exaggerated; democratic elections usually do more good than harm. The United States should, however, aim to promote liberal values as well as electoral democracy. And the "soft authoritarian" challenge to liberal democracy was not persuasive, even before the Asian economic turmoil of 1997 and 1998 undermined claims for the superiority of "Asian values." These are one of the reasons why they should promote democracy aboard
