Question

in what ways did the south ensure that anti - slavery legislation would not become permanent laws? select all that apply.by maintaining a balanced us senateby electing southern or southern - friendly presidentswithdrawing federal funds from states that abolished slaveryby having pro - southern justices appointed to the us supreme courtquestion 4many 21st century americans believe that the pre - civil war south strongly supported states rights (the idea that individual states should have the power to determine the laws within their respective states, limiting the power of the federal government). which of the following is evidence that this was not totally true?southern states pushed for the annexation of texassouthern states called for secession as early as 1850 over the issue of freedom of the seas, which northern states had limited with state lawssouthern states took northern states to the supreme court over the issue of northern states passing \liberty laws\southern support for the 10th amendment

Explanation:

• Question 3:
• Maintaining a balanced US Senate allowed the South to block anti - slavery legislation as each state has two senators. If the South had equal representation (in terms of the number of slave and free states), they could vote against anti - slavery bills.
• Electing Southern or Southern - friendly Presidents meant that the executive branch, which has veto power over legislation, would be less likely to support or sign anti - slavery laws.
• Having Pro - Southern Justices appointed to the US Supreme Court could lead to judicial decisions that struck down or interpreted anti - slavery laws in a way that was favorable to the South. Withdrawing Federal funds from states that abolished slavery was not a common practice at the time. The South was more focused on political power (Senate, Presidency, Supreme Court) rather than using this financial mechanism.
• Question 4:
• The 10th Amendment is about states' rights (reserving powers to the states not delegated to the federal government), so support for it would be in line with a states' rights stance.
• Southern states pushing for the annexation of Texas (which was a slave - holding area) was more about expanding slave territory rather than a contradiction of states' rights.
• Southern states calling for secession over freedom of the seas (an issue not directly related to a federal overreach in a way that contradicts their claimed states' rights) is not as strong evidence.
• When Southern states took Northern states to the Supreme Court over Northern "liberty laws" (which were laws that protected escaped slaves in the North), they were using the federal judicial system. If they truly believed in absolute states' rights (that each state could do as it pleased within its borders), they would not have sought federal - level (Supreme Court) intervention. This shows that their "states' rights" stance was selective.

Answer:

• Question 3:
• By maintaining a balanced US Senate
• By electing Southern or Southern - friendly Presidents
• By having Pro - Southern Justices appointed to the US Supreme Court
• Question 4: Southern states took Northern states to the Supreme Court over the issue of Northern states passing "liberty laws"