What part of the compromise of 1850 most angered northerners?

i also think he is correct. i believe they came to washington to protest their rights.

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.  

after a more than a decade and a half of combating al qaeda (aq) in afghanistan and pakistan,

the united states faces a diverse array of threats from al qaeda affiliates in the middle east and

africa. while senior al qaeda figures reportedly remain based in pakistan, the network includes

a number of affiliates across the middle east and africa including al qaeda in the arabian

peninsula (aqap), al qaeda in the islamic maghreb (aqim), and al shabaab. al qaeda also

retains a small but possibly growing presence in afghanistan. u.s. officials have stated that al

qaeda still maintains a foothold in syria through its ties to hay’at tahrir al sham (formerly

known as the nusra front), though the exact nature of that relationship may be evolving. this

report examines the threat posed by al qaeda affiliates in the middle east and africa as described

by u.s. officials and outside observers, as well as the u.s. approach to date in responding to these

threats. this was all i could find hope this : )