Answer:
In 1debate over the issue, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay proposed another compromise. It had four parts: first, California would enter the Union as a free state; second, the status of slavery in the rest of the Mexican territory would be decided by the people who lived there; third, the slave trade (but not slavery) would be abolished in Washington, D.C.; and fourth, a new Fugitive Slave Act would enable Southerners to reclaim runaway slaves who had escaped to Northern states where slavery was not allowed.
Bleeding Kansas
But the larger question remained unanswered. In 1854, Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas proposed that two new states, Kansas and Nebraska, be established in the Louisiana Purchase west of Iowa and Missouri. According to the terms of the Missouri Compromise, both new states would prohibit slavery because both were north of the 36º30’ parallel. However, since no Southern legislator would approve a plan that would give more power to “free-soil” Northerners, Douglas came up with a middle ground that he called “popular sovereignty”: letting the settlers of the territories decide for themselves whether their states would be slave or free.
Northerners were outraged: Douglas, in their view, had caved to the demands of the “slaveocracy” at their expense. The battle for Kansas and Nebraska became a battle for the soul of the nation. Emigrants from Northern and Southern states tried to influence the vote. For example, thousands of Missourians flooded into Kansas in 1854 and 1855 to vote (fraudulently) in favor of slavery. “Free-soil” settlers established a rival government, and soon Kansas spiraled into civil war. Hundreds of people died in the fighting that ensued, known as “Bleeding Kansas.”
A decade later, the civil war in Kansas over the expansion of slavery was followed by a national civil war over the same issue. As Thomas Jefferson had predicted, it was the question of slavery in the West–a place that seemed to be the emblem of American freedom–that proved to be “the knell of the union.”
Answer:
The human body is composed of different level of complex tissues, as each of the organ is dedicated to a more specific form of functions inside the human body, as the different organs work in a more coordinated form inside the human body. However, the human body consists of the circulatory system along with the lymphatic system. Apart from the blood capillaries and other pathways for the blood medium to be transported to the different tissues there are lymphatic system and pathways for the regulation of materials and blood cells required for the sustaining of the circulatory system inside the human body.
Explanation:
- <u>Features of the lymphatic system:</u>
- As, there is a more unique pathway as the right lymphatic duct and the thoracic duct for the regulation of the T-cells and other form of lymphocytes inside the human body.
- Along, with having spleen and the tonsils as the main component of the lymphatic system.
- The lymphatic system consists of more different mechanism to make it sure that the sufficient amount and number of materials are well received by the different tissues and cells.
- The lymphatic ducts are considered to be more large then there counterparts which are the veins inside the circulatory system of the human body. As, the collect any material that was either lost or misplaced from the conventional form of material transportation and they transport back it to the circulatory system.
Answer: The correct answer is <em>Law of Immediate Reinforcer</em>: this law states that any reinforcer is presented immediately, in this case the paycheck is that immediate reinforcer.
Explanation:
When reinforcement is provided immediately, individuals can more easily identify the behaviors that lead to reinforcement and those that do not. This type of reinforcement Ieads to a desired behavior being commited. Another factor that can facilitate discrimination is the clear specification of environmental conditions, or stimuli, under which reinforcement will be provided
<span>There's not really any pros for propaganda because essentially what you are doing is lying to get someone to believe something. I guess you could say a pro is that gullible people will believe you, but that's an unethical pro. The cons are that it usually causes much controversy in a society where there's not supposed to be a bias in the government. Propaganda in its true form is never a good thing. It is unethical in the sense that it takes advantage of people who are too lazy to do research and quick to believe what someone tells them. One example I like to use is many of these independent "news" websites. On both ends of the political spectrum, left and right, you find websites that have articles so heavily weighed down with that wings propaganda that true news becomes less and less visible. Occupy Democrats is one textbook example of that. Their articles are so left leaning that you read an article and are immediately left with a left leaning impression. Same goes for a lot of right wing websites. I'm not going to say "always" but propaganda 99.9 percent of the time is not good. Instead of people doing their own research to decide their view on something, propaganda </span>tells<span> people what they should think versus the </span><span>asking </span><span>people what they think</span>
