Which best describes the difference between the free-soil territories and those that had popular sovereignty? a. a territory that was free soil was closed to slavery, while one that had popular sovereignty was allowed to vote on the slavery issue. b. a territory that was free soil was open to slavery, while one that had popular sovereignty was allowed to vote on the slavery issue. c. a territory that had popular sovereignty was open to slavery, while one that was free soil was allowed to vote on the slavery issue. d. a territory that had popular sovereignty was closed to slavery, while one that was free soil was allowed to vote on the slavery issue. e. a territory that was free soil accepted the homestead act of 1862, while one that had popular sovereignty did not.

A. A territory that was free soil was closed to slavery, while one that had popular sovereignty was allowed to vote on the slavery issue.

Explanation:

A territory that was considered to be "free-soil" was a territory that was closed to slavery. This means that slavery was, by law, not allowed within this territory. On the other hand, a territory that was considered to have popular sovereignty was one in which people had the right to self-determination. This meant that they were entitled to vote on the slavery issue and decide their position for themselves.

during the debate over his landmark energy policy proposal, president jimmy carter failed to consult one of the most powerful senators, louisiana’s russell long, who would have a big say over whether the legislation moved through the upper chamber. this was classic carter. with a strong distaste for congressional politics, the president simply refused to do what most other presidents would consider routine, such as courting key senators. long became so irate with the president that when he was finally invited to a white house dinner, he stood up to ask a question and, before doing so, proceeded to sarcastically introduce himself: “i’m russell long, chairman of the senate finance committee.”

this interaction is a revealing moment in stuart e. eizenstat’s fascinating new history of carter’s presidency. the former peanut farmer from georgia was a president who, according to conventional wisdom, didn’t care much for party politics; nonetheless, in eizenstat’s view, carter’s legacy on domestic and foreign policy has been vastly underappreciated. the author paints carter as a “bold and determined” leader who bravely attacked the challenges of his time. eizenstat goes so far as to argue that carter might very well be the most successful one-term president in american history.