Black Lives Matter works for the black people and against police brutality and violence against black people.
Black Lives Matter are very important for both the United States and the world right now because it is a decentralized political and social movement that protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.
Alicia Garza mean by saying that when black people are free, all people are free because black people have less right and freedom in the society of United states of America. If they are free to do anything it means that the whole society are free.
The women suggest people to do ensure all people are free in making speech, in practicing their religion, in press, in assembly, and in the right to petition the government.
Learn more: brainly.com/question/25842668
They resisted by escaping the forced west !...
Answer:
Northern anger over the assassination of Lincoln and the immense human cost of the war led to demands for punitive policies. Vice President Andrew Johnson had taken a hard line and spoke of hanging Confederates, but when he succeeded Lincoln as president, Johnson took a much softer position, pardoning many Confederate leaders and former Confederates.[78] Former Confederate President Jefferson Davis was held in prison for two years, but other Confederate leaders were not. There were no trials on charges of treason. Only one person—Captain Henry Wirz, the commandant of the prison camp in Andersonville, Georgia—was executed for war crimes. Andrew Johnson's conservative view of Reconstruction did not include the involvement of blacks or former slaves in government and he refused to heed Northern concerns when Southern state legislatures implemented Black Codes that set the status of the freedmen much lower than that of citizens.[9]
Smith argues that "Johnson attempted to carry forward what he considered to be Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction."[79] McKitrick says that in 1865 Johnson had strong support in the Republican Party, saying: "It was naturally from the great moderate sector of Unionist opinion in the North that Johnson could draw his greatest comfort."[80] Billington says: "One faction, the moderate Republicans under the leadership of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, favored a mild policy toward the South."[81] Lincoln biographers Randall and Current argued that:
It is likely that had he lived, Lincoln would have followed a policy similar to Johnson's, that he would have clashed with congressional Radicals, that he would have produced a better result for the freedmen than occurred, and that his political skills would have helped him avoid Johnson's mistakes.[82]
Historians generally agree that President Johnson was an inept politician who lost all his advantages by unskilled maneuvering. He broke with Congress in early 1866 and then became defiant and tried to block enforcement of Reconstruction laws passed by the U.S. Congress. He was in constant conflict constitutionally with the Radicals in Congress over the status of freedmen and whites in the defeated South.[83] Although resigned to the abolition of slavery, many former Confederates were unwilling to accept both social changes and political domination by former slaves. In the words of Benjamin Franklin Perry, President Johnson's choice as the provisional governor of South Carolina: "First, the Negro is to be invested with all political power, and then the antagonism of interest between capital and labor is to work out the result."[84]
However, the fears of the mostly conservative planter elite and other leading white citizens were partly assuaged by the actions of President Johnson, who ensured that a wholesale land redistribution from the planters to the freedmen did not occur. President Johnson ordered that confiscated or abandoned lands administered by the Freedmen's Bureau would not be redistributed to the freedmen but would be returned to pardoned owners. Land was returned that would have been forfeited under the Confiscation Acts passed by Congress in 1861 and 1862.
Explanation:
hope this helps you please mark me as brainliest
Answer:
Governments can be run and managed well or poorly based on leaders in charge- look at explanation
Explanation:
A government can usually dictate to some degree what people do. So if the government passes a law that bans a certain race or gender from doing a certain thing, whether it be applying for a job, or eating at a certain restaurant, then the government is limiting human rights. This, morally to us as a modern society as seen as a bad thing because it judges people based on things they cannot change, instead of things people can change like attitude or character. Now lets say a government decided to pass a law that provided healthcare or education for its people. This would be a good thing because people who become educated or maintain their health will most likely be beneficial to the society that they are a part of.
