Answer: Answer of 1st question
The Shay's Rebellion was a movement by the farmers of Massachusetts led by the Danial Shay who was American Revolutionary War vet.
The fight between the rebellion and the government army was limited in the Springfield. The rebels attacked the Springfield Armory in 1787 to seize the armory, but it was an unsuccessful attempt.
Basically, the protest was against the economic and civil right injustice. The Shay's rebellion demanded the more power to the central government and to form a new government.
Moreover, the reason behind for sparking off the Shay's rebellion was also the demand of Constitutional convention. There was a week national government under the Articles of Confederation. Because after getting the independence from the British monarchy, the founder fathers were not willing to form a type of central government which would held power more than the states. There was a fear of monopoly of power by the central government which would be same experience like as the British rule. So for this thinking the national government was weak under the Articles of Confederation.
Answer of 2nd question
There was a week national government under the Articles of Confederation. Because after getting the independence from the British monarchy, the founder fathers were not willing to form a type of central government which would held power more than the states. There was a fear of monopoly of power by the central government which would be same experience like as the British rule. So for this thinking the national government was weak under the Articles of Confederation.
Explanation:
The voice that you hear in a story is the voice of the narrator, and told either in first person or third-person. Details tell you how the narrator feels about the characters and events. From the first page of "How Mighty Kate Stopped the Train," I see that the story is told from the third-person point of view.
The judicial power of the United States
Pro slavery advocates believed slave owners had a right to transport slaves into the territories; antislavery advocates argued that this gave slave holding settlers an unfair advantage over non-slave holding settlers.
Pro slavery advocates argued that the slave status of Kansas should be determined by popular vote; antislavery advocates argued that Kansas should be free because of its location north of the 36° 30' parallel.
Pro slavery advocates contended that free African Americans in Kansas should not be permitted rights under the state constitution; antislavery advocates argued that the federal constitution took precedence over Kansas’s state constitution.
Pro slavery advocates held that slavery in the state was legal, as established in the Missouri Compromise of 1820; antislavery advocates argued that this legislation was invalidated by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Dred Scott case.
