1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
IgorLugansk [536]
2 years ago
14

Why do mountainous regions have a smaller population?

History
2 answers:
mart [117]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

The mountainous regions are prone to problems making it difficult for a place of living.

Explanation:

Building a house on a mountain is difficult, because uneven ground and separation between the rocks and soil could cause issues in the foundations. Other issues like land slides, foundation settling, and water run off can cause issues over time.

AysviL [449]2 years ago
4 0

Answer: D

Explanation:

mountains often have rough, uneven terrain, making it hard to build structures or farm.

BRAILIEST PLEASE

You might be interested in
PLEASE HELP FAST Why did President Lincoln oppose a compromise that would extend slavery into the west?
bija089 [108]

“In politics Mr Lincoln told the truth when he said he had ‘always hated slavery as much as any Abolitionist’ but I do not know that he deserved a great deal of credit for that for his hatred of oppression & wrong in all its forms was constitutional – he could not help it,” wrote Attorney Samuel C. Parks, a longtime friend of Abraham Lincoln.1 Contemporary Robert H. Browne recalled Abraham Lincoln telling him in 1854: “The slavery question often bothered me as far back as 1836-40. I was troubled and grieved over it; but the after the annexation of Texas I gave it up, believing as I now do, that God will settle it, and settle it right, and that he will, in some inscrutable way, restrict the spread of so great an evil; but for the present it is our duty to wait.”2

Browne came to know Mr. Lincoln as a teenage assistant in the Bloomington law office of David Davis and Asahel Gridley. “One evening as I sat and talked with him in the office, in order to answer his question as to what was the groundwork on my belief on slavery, I told him what I knew and has seen of it in the mild slaveholding city of St. Louis, and what my father knew about it for several years.” Browne recalled that he “talked an hour, with frequent questions interspersed by Mr. Lincoln, who was deeply interested in every fact and feature of this slavery business in the city of St. Louis, as we saw and understood it for so many years. When I had finished, he was in deep and profound study, and I thought perhaps he had fallen asleep. I said, in the usual way, not louder than ordinary conversation, ‘Mr. Lincoln, do you wonder that my father and myself were Abolitionists, or do you doubt our sincerity?’ This disclosed that he had not been asleep, but in deep thought. He sat firm, with not so much as a muscle of his face relaxed, as he had done through much of my recital. His face and its firm, drawn expression was like one in pain. He made a motion of some kind with his arm or head, and broke the strain, which, I remember, relieved me very much. He drew out a sighing ‘No. I saw it all myself when I was only a little older than you are now, and the horrid pictures are in my mind yet. I feel drawn toward you because you have seen and know the truth of such sorrow. No wonder that your father told Judge [Stephen A.] Douglas he had nothing but contempt for party platforms or technicalities that held and bound a free man in a free State, directly or remotely, to sustain a system of such unqualified cruelties and horrors….'”3

The Morality and Legality of Slavery

Lincoln often said that he had believed slavery was wrong for as long as he could remember. In a speech in Chicago on July 10, 1858 Lincoln said he of slavery: “I have always hated it, but I have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began.”4 Lincoln scholar Harry V. Jaffa wrote: “For Lincoln…the entire antebellum debate came down to the question of whether the Negro was or was not a human being. If he was a human being, then he was included in the proposition that all men are created equal. If he was included in that proposition then it was a law of nature antecedent to the Constitution that he ought to be free and that civil society has as its originating purpose the security of his freedom and of the fruits of his labor under law.”5 Lincoln’s views on slavery, however, were at odds with the predominant racist feelings of Illinois residents. Early Lincoln chronicler Francis Fisher Browne noted: “During the years of Lincoln’s service in the Legislature of Illinois, the Democratic party was strongly dominant throughout the State. The feeling on the subject of slavery was decidedly in sympathy with the South. A large percentage of the settlers in the southern and middle portions of Illinois were from the States in which slave labor was sustained, and although the determination not to permit the institution to obtain a foothold in the new commonwealth was general, the people were opposed to any action which should affect its condition where it was already established. During the session of 1836-’37, resolutions of an extreme pro-slavery character were carried through the Legislature by the Democratic party. The aim of the measure was to prevent the Abolitionists from obtaining a foothold in the State.”6 Mr. Lincoln and a Whig colleague from Sangamon County introduced a petition in the legislature condemning slavery. Lincoln legal scholar Paul Finkelman wrote: “This early foray into the constitutional issues of slavery suggests that Lincoln, even as a young man, understood the constitutional limitations as well as the constitutional possibilities of fighting slavery.”7 He also understood the reality of his isolation on the slavery issue. Lincoln scholar Saul Sigelschiffer observed: “There were few sections of Illinois where prejudice against the Negro was stronger than in Sangamon County, which had been settled chiefly by Kentuckians.”8

5 0
3 years ago
What did the great Compromise and the three-fifths compromise involve so much debate and discussion at the constitutional conven
evablogger [386]

Answer:  Because each state was looking out for its personal interests in regard to representation in Congress.

Details:

The Great Compromise and the Three-Fifths Compromise both focused on  the representation of states in Congress.   Both of these compromises were devised during the United States Constitutional Convention in 1787.  

  • The Great Compromise resolved a dispute between small population states and large population states.  The large population states wanted representation in Congress to be based on a state's population size.  The smaller states feared this would lead to unchecked dominance by the big states; they wanted all states to receive the same amount of representation.  The Great Compromise created a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature.  Representation in the House of Representatives would be based on population.  In the Senate, all states would have the same amount of representation, by two Senators.
  • The Three-Fifths Compromise was a way of accounting (somewhat) for the population of slaves in states that permitted slavery.  For taxation and representation purposes, the question was whether slaves should count in the population figures.  (They were not considered voting citizens at that time.)   The Three-Fifths Compromise said that three out of every five slaves could be counted when determining a state's population size for determining how many seats that state would receive in the House of Representatives.
5 0
3 years ago
Explain why president Andrew Johnson was impeached?
Fudgin [204]
He was impeached because adopting 11 articles of impeachment detailing his "high crimes and misdrmanors", in accordance with article two of the United States Constitution
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What limitations does the Torah have as a historical source ?<br>​
Aleksandr [31]

Answer:

The limits is that the Torah has high chances of having many stories over-exaggerated or a bit tweaked which does not make it a good historical source. To be considered as a strong and reliable historical sources, it needs what historian called as a primary sources.

8 0
3 years ago
People born in the United States are A) legal residents B) naturalized citizens C) U.S. citizens D) immigrants
Elenna [48]
People who are born in the United States are called U.S Citizens. A citizen is a member of a Country. 
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Why do people commit religious violence
    7·1 answer
  • How many languages did thomas jefferson speak fluently?
    7·1 answer
  • I REALLY NEED HELP<br> How did the sugar act of 1764 prove beneficial to Samuel Adams?
    8·1 answer
  • who did many people blame for the terrible position they found themselves in during the great depression
    14·1 answer
  • What was the progress of the cold war between the united stand and soviet union and their relationship
    14·1 answer
  • The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct objec
    11·1 answer
  • Why did the Cold War begin?
    5·2 answers
  • Introduction to the Articles of Confederation:
    7·2 answers
  • Three contributing factors that led to xenophobia​
    8·1 answer
  • What challenge does FDR present Americans in place of “rumors or guesses” about the failing financial system?
    9·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!