After taking into consideration this important historical figures such as Nat Turner, Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison and Sojourner Truth I had come to the conclusion that neither violence or nonviolence are a way to eliminate slavery effectively. I think both extremes aren't useful because they are extremes. It is evident that through violence you can't get to eliminate slavery in the USA, but this doesn't mean that making a revolt, organizing a protest and many more active ways of showing disapproval are wrong. These events are needed in order to show the society that slavery is wrong, it's not natural neither ethical and needs to have an end. I think there needs to be a balance between violence and nonviolence. You can raise your voice and make it be heard, you can make a revolt and make the wealthy and powerful hear the oppressed, you can publish books about slavery stories and abuses, you can publish news or opinions on a local newspaper and many active ways of making your voice be heard. You don't have to be impartial about this injustice and calm, sometimes a little bit of rudeness, toughness, and resistance are needed to face social problems such as slavery. Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Thruth are good examples of effective abolitionsts and activist of slavery beacuse they were heard, they actively protest against slavery without having to be violent but not being kind and polite either. They were some of the fighters who lead the path to abolish slavery in the USA.
Between 70,000 and 100,000 years ago, Homo sapiens began migrating from the African continent and populating parts of Europe and Asia. They reached the Australian continent in canoes sometime between 35,000 and 65,000 years ago.
The electoral system was deliberately set up to slightly favor the small states because the number of electors assigned to a state, although dependent on population, is not an exact ration of population, with a higher ratio of electors for states with smaller populations.
