A substantiated opinion is best supported by facts, like : studies, data, and research.
Hope this helps you :)
Answer:
1) Violence: Blacks who tried to vote were threatened, beaten, and killed. Their families were also harmed. Sometimes their homes were burned down. Often, they lost their jobs or were thrown off their farms.
Whites used violence to intimidate blacks and prevent them from even thinking about voting. Still, some blacks passed the requirements to vote and took the risk. Some whites used violence to punish those “uppity” people and show other blacks what would happen to them if they voted.
2) Literacy tests: Today almost all adults can read. One hundred years ago, however, many people – black and white – were illiterate. Most illiterate people were not allowed to vote. A few were allowed if they could understand what was read to them. White officials usually claimed that whites could understand what was read. They said blacks could not understand it, even when they clearly could.
3) Property tests: In the South one hundred years ago, many states allowed only property owners to vote. Many blacks and whites had no property and could not vote.
4) Grandfather clause: People who could not read and owned no property were allowed to vote if their fathers or grandfathers had voted before 1867. Of course, practically no blacks could vote before 1867, so the grandfather clause worked only for whites.
Explanation: From about 1900 to 1965, most African Americans were not allowed to vote in the South. This was especially true in the Deep South: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.
White people in power used many methods to keep African Americans from voting. Some of these methods also prevented poor white people from voting.
The economic restructuring program Mikhail Gorbachev used was "Glasnost".
John Julius Norwich makes a point of saying in the introduction to his history of the popes that he is “no scholar” and that he is “an agnostic Protestant.” The first point means that while he will be scrupulous with his copious research, he feels no obligation to unearth new revelations or concoct revisionist theories. The second means that he has “no ax to grind.” In short, his only agenda is to tell us the story. Norwich declares that he is an agnostic Protestant with no axe to grind: his aim is to tell the story of the popes, from the Roman period to the present, covering them neither with whitewash nor with ridicule. Even more disarmingly, he insists that he has no pretensions to scholarship and writes only for “the average intelligent reader”. But he adds: “I have tried to maintain a certain lightness of touch.” And that, it seems, is the opening through which a fair amount of outrageous anecdote and Gibbonian dry wit is allowed to enter the narrative.
Collecting taxes. Is the answer.
