Southern anger at the tariff of abominations was driven partly by fear that a. expanding federal government power could threaten the future of slavery. b. the revenues generated by the tariff would be spent on wasteful construction in the capital. c. yankee prosperity would flow from the factory rather than from the sea.

b. the revenues generated by the tariff would be spent on wasteful construction in the capital.  

Explanation:

On May 19, 1828, the United States Congress, then under the presidency of John Quincy Adams, passed what became known as the “abomination tariff,” a series of tariffs of 62 percent over 92 percent of all imported products. The aim was to protect northern industries, which could not compete with imported products.

The southern states suffered even more, as many of the products they imported from England were not produced domestically. Moreover, as England had to reduce its exports to the United States because of tariffs, it consequently reduced its cotton imports from the southern states. Southern states regarded these tariffs as a major oppression from the northerners, and they believed that the revenues generated by the tariff would be spent on wasted buildings in the capital.

these are the choices

local priests

european monarchs

common people

bible translators

the answer is the petition of right.

explanation:

offer to of right, real demand of attesting a benefit against the english crown, the most remarkable point of reference being the petition of right of 1628, which parliament sent to charles i fussing of a movement of oversteps of law. the term also implied the framework (invalidated in 1947) by which a subject could sue the crown.   taking a gander at the frameworks used by maria amidu to make a standard in 2015 commending the 1628 petition of right, which was sent to charles i by the english parliament. at uniquely based law the crown, or the sovereign in his official cutoff, couldn't be sued in the ruler's courts. since the ruler was, really, the superior ace of those courts, coordinating value in them between his subjects, he was not subject to their ward. therefore it transformed into a preparation, at whatever point a subject's certified or individual property had come into the responsibility for ruler or his specialists without legitimate perfect, for the subject to engage the master in chamber for its recovery.