The civil war was caused by more than disagreement there was slavery going on and racism and so-on
Answer:
Gerrymandering (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/,[1][2]) is a practice intended to establish an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries, which is most commonly used in first-past-the-post electoral systems.
Two principal tactics are used in gerrymandering: "cracking" (i.e. diluting the voting power of the opposing party's supporters across many districts) and "packing" (concentrating the opposing party's voting power in one district to reduce their voting power in other districts).[3] The top-left diagram in the graphic is a form of cracking where the majority party uses its superior numbers to guarantee the minority party never attains a majority in any district.
In addition to its use achieving desired electoral results for a particular party, gerrymandering may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, or class group, such as in Northern Ireland where boundaries were constructed to guarantee Protestant Unionist majorities.[4] The U.S. federal voting district boundaries that produce a majority of constituents representative of African-American or other racial minorities are known as "majority-minority districts". Gerrymandering can also be used to protect incumbents. Wayne Dawkings describes it as politicians picking their voters instead of voters picking their politicians.[5]
The term gerrymandering is named after Elbridge Gerry (pronounced like "Gary"[2]), who, as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compared to the shape of a mythological salamander. The term has negative connotations and gerrymandering is almost always considered a corruption of the democratic process
Early colonists had to look to the east for a number of reasons. The first was economic. Most colonies, Jamestown for example, depended on the mother country, or more accurately on the companies that founded them, for supplies and financial backing. They also had to become financially lucrative for their backers in England to justify their existence. While some were more explicitly motivated by the desire for profit than others, all of the colonies in their early stages were to some extent business ventures.
Another reason was political. The colonies owed their legitimacy (even the Massachusetts Bay Colony, whose founders wisely took their charter with them) to the Crown. All of the colonies replicated, in some form or another, English common law, including the courts, local officials, and representative bodies. Before long, most colonies were governed by royal appointees, sent as the Crown's representative. Even the independent-minded Puritans were English subjects, and they thought of themselves like this.
Hey there! I'm happy to help!
The Treaty of Paris basically made the French lose almost all of their land in North America as they gave it to Britain.
George Washington was a general in the French and Indian War that was a fierce fighter in many of the battles.
Have a wonderful day! :D
In general, Britain sought to correct its balance of trade with China by decrease its exports and increasing Chinese imports. This angered many merchants in Britain.
