So many people were getting killed and they were running out of resources.
<span>he Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed each territory to decide the issue of slavery on the basis of popular sovereignty. Kansas with slavery would violate the Missouri Compromise, which had kept the Union from falling apart for the last thirty-four years. The long-standing compromise would have to be repealed. Opposition was intense, but ultimately the bill passed in May of 1854. Territory north of the sacred 36°30' line was now open to popular sovereignty. The North was outraged.The political effects of Douglas' bill were enormous. Passage of the bill irrevocably split the Whig Party, one of the two major political parties in the country at the time. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every southern Whig voted for it. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was no way a common ground could be found. Most of the southern Whigs soon were swept into the Democratic Party. Northern Whigs reorganized themselves with other non-slavery interests to become the REPUBLICAN PARTY, the party of Abraham Lincoln. This left the Democratic Party as the sole remaining institution that crossed sectional lines. Animosity between the North and South was again on the rise. The North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850 could be ignored as well. Violations of the hated Fugitive Slave Law increased. Trouble was indeed back with a vengeance.</span>
Answer:
The right answer is:
E. A slave on a large plantation slowed down the work pace.
Explanation:
Slowing down the work pace is a form of sabotage or boycott. It will lower productivity and all of this will result in a loss for the plantation´s owner.
Because Naomi is doing this, she's using the rationalization defense mechanism. She's using this one because she says to herself she can still study tomorrow considering the exam is a week away from her current time, which means she has a lot of time left.
The separate but equal provision of private services mandated by state government is<span> constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Brewer took no part in the consideration or </span>decision<span> of the </span>case<span>. </span>Plessy v<span>. </span>Ferguson<span>, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark </span>decision<span> of the U.S.</span>Supreme Court<span> issued in 1896.</span>
