Answer:
Though the Missouri Compromise managed to keep the peace—for the moment—it failed to resolve the pressing question of slavery and its place in the nation’s future. Southerners who opposed the Missouri Compromise did so because it set a precedent for Congress to make laws concerning slavery, while Northerners disliked the law because it meant slavery was expanded into new territory
Explanation:
The Answer Is: D) an electronic linking...
Answer:
<u>B. It set limits on the power of the British monarchy.</u>
Explanation:
The Magna Carta (1215) was a charter of rights written by a group of Barons of England that were tired of King John’s tyrannic rule. The charter established a more powerful parliament, granted some liberties of free men such as the right to a trial by jury before punishment and reduced the power of King John, whose rule was perceived as abusive especially toward people and in his imposition of high levies, even in the absence of war.
Its significance lies in the fact that it set limits on the power of the British monarchy by making the King subject to the law, meaning that from that point on, the British crown had to be accountable for their actions under the law, just like everyone else.
Hey there!
The answer is A. That slavery was still allowed in a free nation.
One of the things the colonists fought for was freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press along with other things.
However, for hundreds of thousands of slaves torn away from their homes, they had none of these freedoms. They were considered inferior and not people.
A paradox is a statement that seems absurd of self-contradictory, which this statement very much is. If the U.S. is a free nation, then why do hundreds of thousands of people living there have no freedoms, stolen from them by the very people who advocated for their own freedom?
Hope this helps!
