The correct answer is A. Slavery must not be allowed to spread to western territories. The Free-Soil Party was a political party in the United States from 1848 to 1852. The main opposition was the expansion of slavery on western territories. The Free-Soil Party believed that free men on free land were a superior system comparing it to slavery, because of the economical opportunities and possibilities. This political party was founded in New York after they denied the endorsement of the Wilmot Proviso law during the Democratic convention in that state; this act would have banned slavery on the newly acquired territory during the Mexican-American war.
The main problem that caused separation within the Democratic Party was the fact that during the New York Democratic convention of 1848, the Wilmot Proviso act was not endorsed. This act would ban slavery in territory acquired by the United States from México after the war. For the dislike of many members of a group called Barnburners –which was the name of two opposing ideas in the New York Democratic Party. The main idea separating both groups was slavery and those who opposed it. The Barnburners were the anti-slavery and the Hunkers were those who approved of slavery.
Though this political party had a short life, its impact in the political scenario was bigger. For one, they presented the American people with two Senators and fourteen Representatives on the 31st Congress from 1849-1851. They also ran with the banner ¨Free soil, free speech, free labor and free men.¨ These were the inspirations of the Free-Soil Party, and its main goal was to prevent the spread of slavery onto western territories.
They weren't so successful at conquering Europe or China. Of course, one can blame the long supply lines, but in these cases their adversaries were also determined to repulse them.
In contrast, Byzantium and Persia were exhausted from mutual warfare. Tribes related by kinship to Muslim Arabs had served as mercenaries during this period, so there was a lot of tactical knowledge available.
The Byzantines retreated to the highlands of Anatolia upon losing their lower-lying provinces to the Muslims. I am not sure if they launched a determined counter-attack. The Persians did, but they could not fight coherently.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options attached we can say the following.
The protections that were built into the Charter of the Medieval Town of Lorris, France for the tenant or homeowner were the following.
The King was very interested in the protection of the people of France in that they were "the motor" of the economy of the Middle Ages.
The French small towns had active participation in the economy of the kingdom and had to be protected in those dark ages of the centuries 11th and 12th.
In this case, the charter of Lorris, France, was granted by King Louis VII. The year: 1155.
The charter included important articles such as that the inhabitants of Lorris only needed to pay "sixpence" for their homes and for each acre of land they owned. The charter clearly said that nobodu¿y could force the people to pay extra taxes. People were forced to travel far away to the degree they could not return home on the same day. People were exempted to pay tolls when they crossed the regions of Orleans, Milly, or Etampes. People could not be arrested when they were working in the markets. The only exception was if they were disturbing the peace of the place.
Answer:
no its not even in Africa
Well the <span> main </span>reason<span> that the </span>League<span> of </span>Nations failed<span>, was that the countries only thought for themselves. The absence of the U.S. was a large factor in the failure of the </span>League<span> of </span>Nations<span>, but the root cause of the failure of the </span>League<span> was that it had no real power.</span>
