Answer:
well about 41 million
Explanation:
Some Democratic presidential candidates leaned on their Spanish language skills during the first Democratic primary debate on Wednesday.
The debate, which aired on NBC and MSNBC, was also broadcast on Telemundo platforms, making it the first Spanish-language channel to host a Democratic presidential debate. About 41 million U.S. residents speak Spanish at home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
O’Rourke, who represented a border district and speaks fluent Spanish, kicked things off early in the debate, breaking out in Spanish in answer to the first question addressed to him about the top individual tax rates.
Answer: Politics in some parts of the colonies oscillated, and social movements that opposed slavery emerged.
Explanation:
It is essential to point out at the outset that the slave policy in the South and North was different. The south was entirely dependent on the slave labour, while in the north the slaves were in somewhat better conditions. However, when we talk about the north of More specifically New England, there were some oscillations in the colony. New England freed more and more slaves from year to year, primarily because of the fact that they were involved in the war. The colonial government in Rhode Island, which is an integral part of New England, sought to maintain a somewhat more rigid position on slaves, but all went towards freeing these people. Specific religious-social movements also emerged, which, by invoking moral principles, sought to eliminate slavery.
By the 1820s, the controversy surrounding the Missouri Compromise had quieted down considerably, but was revived by a series of events near the end of the decade. Serious debates over abolition took place in the Virginia legislature in 1829 and 1831. In the North discussion began about the possibility of freeing the slaves and then resettling them back in Africa (a proposal that led to the founding of Liberia). Agitation increased with the publication of David Walker's Appeal to the Colored Citizens of the World in 1829, Nat Turner's slave rebellion in 1831, and Andrew Jackson's handling of the nullification crisis that same year. According to Louis Ruchame, "The Turner rebellion was only one of about 200 slave uprisings between 1776 and 1860, but it was one of the bloodiest, and thus struck fear in the hearts of many white southerners. Nat Turner and more than 70 enslaved and free blacks spontaneously launched a rebellion in Southampton County, Virginia, in August 1831. They moved from farm to farm, indiscriminately killing whites along the way and picking up additional slaves. By the time the militia put down the insurrection, more than 80 slaves had joined the rebellion, and 60 whites lay dead. While the uprising led some southerners to consider abolition, the reaction in all southern states was to tighten the laws governing slave behavior
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
