Dear Diary.
We were seeing a moment of tension, here in South Carolina, I cannot help saying that I am concerned with the result that this moment will develop, but I cannot say how much it is necessary for the well-being of our colonies.
For months I have noticed an unreasonable exploitation of the British crown, which charges us high fees and taxes, but which does not convert these taxes into improvements for our society. On the contrary, the crown refuses to organize the colony, to promote laws and even to promote the success of our stay in America, as a result, South Carolina is in a constant moment of disorganization and corruption between everything and all the elements and inhabitants of this colony.
This irresponsibility of the British crown in relation to South Carolina, makes us, the colonists, to regulate the system of taxes and taxes that we are submitted. We will not pay for something you do not consider worthy. Although I acknowledge that I have a cultural duty to England, my moral values cry out that this charge is illegal, unfair and abusive and must be combated, even if it creates a conflict between the colony and Britain.
J. E.
Answer:
The Supreme Court decision that decided the 2000 Presidential Election should go down in history as one of the court's most ill-conceived judgments. In issuing its poorly-reasoned ruling in Bush v. Gore, the court majority unnecessarily exposed itself to charges of partisanship and risked undermining the court's stature as an independent, impartial arbiter of the law. Although the court majority correctly identified constitutional problems in the specific recount proceedings ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, the decision to end all recount attempts did immeasurable damage to the equal protection rights the court claimed to be guarding, since it favored a convenient and timely tabulation of ballots over an accurate recording of the vote. In the controversy that followed this decision, some critics of the majority decision argued that the court had no business taking on Bush v. Gore in the first place, that it should have remained solely within the Florida courts (Ginsburg, J. [Dissent] Bush v. Gore [2000]). This paper will argue that the court was correct to intervene but that umm the resulting decision was flawed and inconsistent, with potentially serious, adverse implications for the Federal judiciary if the court continues to issue rulings in this way.
Explanation:
Answer:
It was to do reconstruction and get the Union and South together
Explanation:
After the surrender, the main priority were to reconstruct and Get the union and south together, in reconstruction it tried to help get slaves rights and to rebuild.
Answer:
The answer is D. After World War 1
