Answer:
The neutrality of the congress generated polarization in the country. This polarization caused states where slavery was prohibited to criticize and devalue states where slavery was allowed, which retaliated against devaluation with further devaluation.
Explanation:
When Congress decided to stay neutral in relation to slavery in the country, Congressmen believed that this would generate peace in the country, as each state would have autonomy to decide whether it wanted to use slaves or not.
However, the result could not have been more different. Neutrality generated polarization and many conflicts between countries that allowed slaves and prohibited slaves. Countries that did not allow slavery criticized, devalued and tried to interfere with the autonomy of the states that allowed slavery. The slaves who allowed slavery did not tolerate this interference and retaliated as best they could, in addition to promoting a strong devaluation in relation to free countries.
Answer:
One ironic outcome of the immense wealth Spain acquired - and ultimately squandered - with the colonization of the New World was to make rich others. Great wealth allowed the Spanish kings to fight wars in Europe: against France, in the Netherlands, in Italy and against the Turks in the Mediterranean. But on the other hand, large amounts of those riches - gold, silver - ended in the pockets of the European bankers who had given credits to the Spanish kingdom. Because it lost some wars, Spain had to pay indemnizations and reparations to victors, too. At the same time, much of the treasuries belonging to Spain were stolen by British pirates who attacked and robbed the huge fleets of <em>galeones</em> transporting gold to the Spanish ports. As a Latin American historian once wrote, "Spain had the cow, but others drank the milk."
Explanation:
Answer is b because it separates the desert and the savana
