The Southern Economy was not very strong due to the damages from the Civil War.
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.
The duty of a citizen is to participate in voting.
This seems to be an opinion based question, I will provide you with both a yes and no response with arguments to support it and you can choose which one best suites your beliefs:
Yes, the benefits of raising the minimum wage outweigh the drawbacks. By raising the minimum wage you increase the quality of life for workers. Many full time workers are unable to afford housing or groceries in this economy on the minimum wage. At $7.25/hour and 40hrs/week is $290 before taxes. This is not enough income to cover the basic costs of living in most places. If people earned more money they would have more money to spend and corporations would profit from an increase in sales. Also, workers wouldn't have to depend so much on government services such as food stamps and section 8 housing assistance because they would be able to support their families with their own income. This would free up funds for government to provide more for the school systems, better healthcare and/or infrastructure.
No, the benefits of an increased minimum wage would not outweigh the drawbacks. The drawbacks of a higher minimum wage are significant because they most directly effect small business owners. The "mom and pop shop" owners depend on paying low salaries in order to keep their doors open. If they were forced to increase their pay rates, by what many minimum wage supporters suggest: more than double, they would not be able to afford employees to keep their doors open. Also, government agencies would be forced to pay their low-level workers as much as $15/hr which could become a tax burden on the citizens who pay for the salaries of all government employees. Raising the minimum wage would be detrimental to the economy because small companies and the government could not afford to support the salaries and benefits of their workers.
<span>Conditions that lead to social loafing can include over sized work groups, lack of task delineation, and rules of workload. Large groups tend to allow some individuals to let their groups do the work for them. Not having a specific task can discourage some workers when others might be more motivated to tackle the problem at hand. Not requiring a certain amount of participation means that students aren't held accountable for their part in the final product.</span>
