There were 2 main changes.
Firstly, the Civil War established that the King could not rule without the consent of Parliament, particularly in regard to raising taxes.
Secondly, it was recognized that the king needed a sufficient income to "live off his own" in order to prevent his dissolving parliament and ruling by decree, especially in order to raise money through unagreed new taxes.
In general, the Populist Party argued for decreased prices in food and farm products because that would mean less income for the farmers, who supported them.
In the United States before 1865, a slave state was a state in which the slave trade was legal, while a free state was one in which it was not. There were enslaved persons in most free states in the 1840 census, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 specifically stated that an enslaved person remained enslaved even if their owner took them to a free state.
The answer I believe is C, that scott as a slave was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue
Greater independence and diversity of
thought
