Answer:
The Kansas-Nebraska Act, issued on May 30, 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, repealing the Missouri Compromise, and allowing immigrants settled in these territories to decide whether or not to introduce slavery on them.
The text stated that the pioneers would be able to vote to decide whether or not to introduce slavery, in the name of "popular sovereignty". Unsurprisingly, opponents of slavery denounced the law, viewing it as a concession to the slave power of the South. The new Republican Party, which was created in opposition to this law, set itself the goal of stopping the expansion of slavery and quickly became the dominant force in all the northern states.
The result was a series of violence and murders called Bleeding Kansas between 1854 and 1861, pitting pro and anti-slavery settlers in the new Kansas Territory, and revealing itself as the origin of the Civil War.
Answer:
A. Its content is mostly reliable because it accurately describes how the war began.
Explanation:
Just got it wrong on edge
Answer:
Europeans were motivated by the promise of economic growth, the sting of national rivalry, and a sense of moral superiority. With economic growth in mind, Europe believed expansion would not only supply them with cheap resources, but it would also create new markets in which they could trade
Explanation:
Chinese because they mainly went after the whites and blacks
Globalization must be expected to influence the distribution of income as well as its level. So far as the distribution of income between countries is concerned, standard theory would lead one to expect that all countries will benefit. Economists have long preached that trade is mutually beneficial, and most of us believe that the experience of widespread growth alongside rapidly growing trade in the postwar period serves to substantiate that. Similarly most FDI goes where a multinational has intellectual capital that can contribute something to the local economy, and is therefore likely to be mutually beneficial to investor and recipient. And a flow of capital that finances a real investment is again likely to benefit both parties, since the yield on the investment is expected to be higher than the rate of interest the borrower has to pay, while that rate of interest is also likely to be higher than the lender could expect at home since otherwise there would have been no incentive to send it abroad. Loose talk about free trade making the rich countries richer and poor countries poorer finds no support in economic analysis.
