The Hamburg Massacre (or Red Shirt Massacre or Hamburg riot) was a key event in the African American town of Hamburg, South Carolina in July 1876, leading up to the last election season of the Reconstruction Era. It was the first of a series of civil disturbances planned and carried out by white Democrats in the majority-black Republican Edgefield District, with the goal of suppressing black voting, disrupting Republican meetings, and suppressing black Americans civil rights, through actual and threatened violence.[1]
Beginning with a dispute over free passage on a public road, the massacre was rooted in racial hatred and political motives. A court hearing attracted armed white "rifle clubs," colloquially called the "Red Shirts". Desiring to regain control of state governments and eradicate the civil rights of black Americans, over 100 white men attacked about 30 black servicemen of the National Guard at the armory, killing two as they tried to leave that night. Later that night, the Red Shirts tortured and murdered four of the militia while holding them as prisoners, and wounded several others. In total, the events in Hamburg resulted in the death of one white man and six black men with several more blacks being wounded. Although 94 white men were indicted for murder by a coroner's jury, none were prosecuted.
The events were a catalyst in the overarching violence in the volatile 1876 election campaign. There were other episodes of violence in the months before the election, including an estimated 100 blacks killed during several days in Ellenton, South Carolina, also in Aiken County. The Southern Democrats succeeded in "redeeming" the state government and electing Wade Hampton III as governor. During the remainder of the century, they passed laws to establish single-party white rule, impose legal segregation and "Jim Crow," and disenfranchise blacks with a new state constitution adopted in 1895. This exclusion of blacks from the political system was effectively maintained into the late 1960s.
Answer:because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land
Explanation:
Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to explore the coastal regions of present-day South Carolina. In 1521, Francisco Gordillo sailed to the Carolina coast from his base in Santo Domingo; no settlement was attempted, but several dozen Native Americans were enslaved.
Five years later, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón sponsored a short-lived effort to settle several hundred persons in the Winyah Bay area (near present-day Myrtle Beach), but unfavorable weather and sickness soon forced a return to Santo Domingo. Nonetheless, later in the 1500s the Spanish established new bases in Florida and spread northward with a string of small settlements.
The French presence was established in 1562 when Jean Ribault brought a group of French Huguenots to Parris Island, but Spanish power in the area rendered the colony untenable.
The English claim to the area arrived with the 1497 voyage of John Cabot, but efforts to colonize did not occur for more than 130 years. In 1629, a grant was awarded to Sir Robert Heath, which included today's North and South Carolina and all land westward to the Pacific Ocean. No settlement activity took place under Heath and in 1663, the lands were granted to eight of Charles II's most loyal supporters, the "lords proprietors."
Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, assisted by the political philosopher John Locke, drafted the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (1669), an intricate and romanticized feudal scheme that was further burdened by the recommended use of grandiose titles for the nobles and their retainers. Whether or not the cumbersome system was seriously intended to be implemented or was simply a means to appeal to the high-born settlers' vanity is not clear.
I had to look for the options and here is my answer:
Based on Seth's graduation project which is about conditioning a monkey to fear a flower, she might consider coming up with a different plan because the monkey does not possess any biological predisposition to be afraid of a flower, which makes this project difficult to achieve or rather impossible.
Answer:
A government where people vote on laws and rules
Explanation:
In direct democracy, citizens are directly responsible for policies. This is as opposed to representative democracy, in which citizens vote for representatives to decide on policies. Switzerland has a direct democracy, where the US has a representative democracy.
