A debate from the perspective of a Northerner over Missouri Statehood would be one talking about the importance of limiting slavery.
A argument from a Southerner would be one arguing that Northerners should allow slavery in states that want slavery.
<h3>What were the arguments for Missouri Statehood?</h3>
Missouri wanted to gain admission into the Union as a slave state and the North did not want this because they were against slavery spreading to other parts of the Union.
Southerners on the other hand, wanted slavery in Missouri as they believed that it would increase the power of slave states in Congress. They therefore argued that territories such as Missouri that wanted slavery, should be free to have slavery.
Find out more on Missouri Statehood at brainly.com/question/1855671.
Answer:
On December 20, 1836, President Andrew Jackson presents Congress with a treaty he negotiated with the Ioway, Sacs, Sioux, Fox, Otoe and Omaha tribes of the Missouri territory. The treaty, which removed those tribes from their ancestral homelands to make way for white settlement, epitomized racist 19th century presidential policies toward Native Americans. The agreement was just one of nearly 400 treaties—nearly always unequal—that were concluded between various tribes and the U.S. government between 1788 and 1883.
Explanation:
Besides geography, the major issue that would have made this impossible is that each "country" or state in South America was dominated by a different ruler, many of whom had fought of the Spanish--meaning that they would have never united under one title. Their cultures were also wildly different.
Answer:
to replace the regulars
Explanation:
The MFDP hoped to replace the regulars as the officially recognized Democratic Party organization in Mississippi by winning the Mississippi seats at the 1964 Democratic National Convention for a slate of delegates elected by some black and white Mississippians and white sympathizers.
B.Texas Joining United States
