It might allow slavery in states North of the Missouri line - the parallel that had been accepted as the 'line in the sand' for so long, and which had kept the peace for thirty years.
it made it possible for slavery to be allowed in more ares-apex
taxation without representation A+
no taxation without representation
The northern industrialists generally frowned upon the Indian Removal Act.
Crumlin and Ballycastle, but no mining is done there because there has been much objection to mining starting here for obvious reasons.
There was no objection, but the word genocide was not created till 1943 ...
It made it possible for slavery to be allowed in more areas.
The Abolitionist objection was that it could allow new slave-states. But most Northerners were not Abolitionists, and were quite favourable to Stephen Douglas and his principle of Popular Sovereignty.
nonconstitutional objections
taxation without representation A+
no taxation without representation
The Sugar Act was hated by colonists because most of them were very poor. This act required taxes to be paid on many popular items.
I have an objection to the vagueness of your "question."
The northern industrialists generally frowned upon the Indian Removal Act.
Crumlin and Ballycastle, but no mining is done there because there has been much objection to mining starting here for obvious reasons.
Northern Abolitionists did not react favorably to the Fugitive Slave Act. This is because it supported the cause they were against.
sustain
If you do no have any objection it means that you are not against something