Why you think the compromises regarding the expansion of slavery were followed? HELP ME PLEASE I NEED THIS BY TODAY 4/27/21

The Compromise of 1850 was five bills dealing with what would happen to the territory gained in the Mexican-American War. Borderlines and geography were finalized in these bills as well as what new territories/states would be Free States v. Slave States. The Compromise was bridged by Henry Clay, Whig, and Stephen Douglas, Democrat. Henry Clay was a legendary politician, the former Speaker of the House. And Douglas would go on to run for President, losing to Abraham Lincoln. The bill reinforced the Fugitive Slave Act from 1793. It also made Texas a slaveholding state and California a free state. So from what we know of the Compromise of 1850 I would say it is fair to say that it was driven by a combination of politics, slavery expansion, and abolition. I feel though politics could be a blanket term that engulfs both slavery expansion and abolition. Also abolition was a driver for some congressmen not to compromise, same with slavery expansion. Also the Compromise of 1850 is often seen as merely something that prolonged the inevitable, the Civil War. So maybe this best answer is that all 3 are factors in the Compromise of 1850 but the actual deal was pure politics.

Explanation:

when in doubt choose c

it's what my teacher told my class when we were going into psats

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.