The overall tone of Lewis' speech was angry and strong. For some, the speech sounded too belligerent. John Lewis changed parts of his speech at the request of Martin Luther King, Jr. Lewis said he could not say no to King because King was his hero, his inspiration.
The part where Lewis said they cannot wholeheartedly support the administration's civil rights bill for it is too little and too late was removed from his revised speech.
Lewis' original speech "We will march through the South, through the heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did" was changed to "we will march with the spirit of love and with the spirit of dignity that we have shown here today"
Answer:
C. To agree and aprove
Explanation:
Ratify means to sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
The trans Atlantic slave trade was the largest movement of people in history.
Answer: between 10 and 15 million Africans
Answer:
The Supreme Court decision that decided the 2000 Presidential Election should go down in history as one of the court's most ill-conceived judgments. In issuing its poorly-reasoned ruling in Bush v. Gore, the court majority unnecessarily exposed itself to charges of partisanship and risked undermining the court's stature as an independent, impartial arbiter of the law. Although the court majority correctly identified constitutional problems in the specific recount proceedings ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, the decision to end all recount attempts did immeasurable damage to the equal protection rights the court claimed to be guarding, since it favored a convenient and timely tabulation of ballots over an accurate recording of the vote. In the controversy that followed this decision, some critics of the majority decision argued that the court had no business taking on Bush v. Gore in the first place, that it should have remained solely within the Florida courts (Ginsburg, J. [Dissent] Bush v. Gore [2000]). This paper will argue that the court was correct to intervene but that umm the resulting decision was flawed and inconsistent, with potentially serious, adverse implications for the Federal judiciary if the court continues to issue rulings in this way.
Explanation:
