<span>a. Southern congressmen opposed the banning of slavery from the new territories
</span><span>Northern states and southern states were at odds over the potential spread of slavery in new states and what that would do to the balance of power in Congress. <span>
In 1846, Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced the proviso as an amendment to an appropriations bill in connection with the peace treaty being negotiated with Mexico. His amendment stipulated that any territory gained from Mexico would be free, not allowing slavery. Wilmot's amendment passed in the House of Representatives, but was unable to get approval in the Senate. The Compromise of 1850, a package of five bills passed by Congress in September of that year, sought to accommodate some of the issues both South and North were debating over during those years. But we know that war over the slavery issue was yet to come.</span></span>
No, I believe that multiple weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation would have hurt America in time. One of the biggest problems was the lack of detail and specific attributes that the Constitution brings from long discussion and debates over what is best for the country. America needed to strengthen it's central government if it wanted to get anywhere, so we may not have become so powerful if we left the majority of the power in the state's hands. Another lacking component was the fact that we had no Executive branch to enforce Congress' laws and no National court to determine the meaning of the laws. Another example is the making of one currency for the entire country. These examples and more could have hurt America if they wouldn't have written the Constitution.
