The Ku Klux Klan initially began as a social club and was formed by Confederate veterans at the end of the Civil War in Tennessee in 1866. This was an offensive and racist response to the newly freed blacks who used to be salves in the southern states of the United States with the objective of intimidating the black population and to restore white supremacy using violent tactics. This initial group tried to keep the black people sacred and under their control specifically so they would not enter political life or seek positions of power or in government in the community, This group was eventually dismantled by its leader Forrest because of its excessive violence and because its members would attack, hit, whip, torture and even kill black people or their supporters in night attacks. It also stopped operating because its original aim, to restore white supremacy in government and positions of power was achieved and there was no need for such an organization to continue. In the 1920's the Klan was revived by a preacher in Atlanta , Georgia. The reasons for this were patriotism and a fear of growing immigration, a nostalgia for the old south way of life and ideas like the ones coming from the Russian revolution where religion lost power and the people took control. This new revival resulted in a racist and violent organization closed and rejecting new immigrants or new ideas who react with intolerance and violence to what they see as different.
Answer:
In their attempt to spread christianity in the area, win converts and transform African societies, Christian missions of all denominations opened schools and disseminated education. Scientifically very important was their pioneer work in African languages.
The major similarity between these two documents is that both reflect the idea that there should be limitations on the power of the government. This is an important idea that is one of the major bases of our entire system of government today. The major difference between the two is the degree of democracy that they contemplate. The Magna Carta is really meant as a contract between the king and his nobles, giving the nobles guarantees against the king. By contrast, the Declaration of Independence is a call for equality and rights for all people (or at least all white men). This means the Declaration is far more democratic than the Magna Carta.
This is in my opinion one of the aspects that makes the central courts and the different lines of thought within a single subject so interesting. The clash of ideas that we have in this case is a perfect example.
- On one side we have those who look at the current 30 million uninsured Americans, which include millions in Texas, and the undeniable success it had in Massachusetts. Most of them conclude that this mandate is a government success.
- On the other hand, we can find those who believe that this is a terrible invasion of the government to the citizen's free will to choose their own healthcare options, they see government overreach, and at the same time an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties to which there is no justification.
Unfortunately this is something that millions of Americans have been forced into. It's evident how they refused to create a public health care system, and instead give more power to the private sector.
After this short debate of ideas, I will give you one question to ponder on: Which principle is more important? Your freedom, your civil liberties, and your freedom from the government line of thought, or the possibilty of providing health care to millions of uninsured Americans?
I hope this solves your question!
Happy 2019! :)
Answer: D. The amount of federal money available to support education decreases.
Explanation:
