Describe the perspectives of the conscience whigs transcedentalists and southern expansionists over the mexican war

CONSCIENCE WHIGS. A New England–based, Massachusetts-centered faction of the Whig party, the Conscience Whigs opposed the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War because they feared the extension of slavery to new territories would endanger the republic. OPPOSED MANIFEST DESTINY BECAUSE OF THE EXPANSION OF SLAVERY.

Transcendentalists believe that society and its institutions—particularly organized religion and political parties—corrupt the purity of the individual. They have faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent. It is only from such real individuals that true community can form. OPPOSED MANIFEST DESTINY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS SHOULD NOT DECIDE WHAT IS GODS WILL/universe/your will

Expansionists argued that the republic must continue to grow in order to survive. Echoing the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, they viewed Manifest Destiny as a means to obtain a new, long-term lease on the Jeffersonian ideal. Far from weakening the republic, they argued, territorial growth would actually serve to strengthen it, providing unlimited economic opportunities for future generations. Expansionists were also motivated by more immediate, practical considerations. Southerners anxious to enlarge the slave empire were among the most ardent champions of the crusade for more territory. New slave states would enhance the South’s political power in Washington and, equally important, serve as an outlet for its growing slave population. BELIEVED IN MANIFEST DESTINY BECAUSE OF THE EXPANSION OF SLAVERY AND A GROWING POPULATION

Datz what I got.

for starters, there is the structural trend of rising primary government expenditure as a share of gdp, which reached 36% in 2014, up from 22% in 1991. this increase reflected a political desire to address the poverty and inequality that had gone unaddressed during previous decades. to support the increase, brazil’s government increased taxes on consumption and promoted progress toward labor-market formalization. nonetheless, public investment, particularly in infrastructure, took a hit. in fact, with the exception of the 2005-2008 period, total investment as a share of gdp has remained below 20% since 1991.

maybe you should ask google for the answer for the question you're looking for