1. B
2. C, D
3. A
4/4 100% Correct
The answer A and C i believe
The Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, and Kansas-Nebraska Act were ordinances were national laws to balance power between slave and free states.
<h3>What was The Missouri Compromise</h3>
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a law that was aimed at addressing growing sectional tensions over the issue of slavery. This law admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery. It was signed by president James Monroe
<h3>What was the Compromise of 1850</h3>
The Compromise of 1850 was a set of five separate bills which passed by the United States Congress in September 1850 that addressed the political confrontation between slave and free states on the status of territories acquired in the Mexican–American War.
<h3>What was the Kansas–Nebraska Act </h3>
The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 was a territorial organic act that created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. This Act repealed the Missouri Compromise, and as mentioned earlier, created two new territories.
Therefore according to the questions, the three legislation were an aftermath of the Louisiana Purchase was concerned with national laws to balance power between slave and free states.
Learn more about the Louisiana Purchase at brainly.com/question/6454945
#SPJ1
<span>For this question, let's just use your example of trader. Now our definition of trader would be the kind of trader that is also a merchant from the past era and not day trader as in a stock trader. Basically, a trader exchanges goods for money or any other form of monetary object. Now a trader can greatly contribute to the economic welfare of the city because he provides goods and services to the people of the city. He will receive money from the people in which he will have to pay taxes which can help contribute to the development of the city. </span>
Mccarthy's accusations against the state department were reflective of earlier developments through his accusations that triggered a series of events that defined the Division of Security’s course for the next decade.
First, there was an establishment of a Congressional committee which called several former and current Department of State officers and advisers to testify and answer charges about their loyalty to redouble its efforts on background investigations of its employees. Second, one Department official’s was reluctant to admission which accidentally triggered a purge of gays at the Department. Thirdly, there was an establishment of the Congressional subcommittee that studied physical security at United States posts overseas, where its report led to increased resources allocation for overseas security.
Mccarthy's had announced that he possessed a list of 205 members of the Communist Party who were “working and shaping policy” in the Department of State.
