Both the montgomery bus boycott and the freedom rides were successful in that they resulted in the integration of transportation. what was the difference in the way the successful outcomes were achieved?
a- the freedom rides were successful despite having no central organization involved in the planning; the montgomery bus boycott was supported by the naacp.
b- the freedom rides succeeded due to federal intervention; the montgomery boycott succeeded due to local economic pressure.
c- the success of the freedom rides did not require the intervention of law enforcement; the montgomery bus boycott involved local police.
d- the success of the freedom rides was due to the support of the american public, the success of the montgomery bus boycott stemmed from international pressure

The correct answer B) the Freedom Rides succeded due to federal intervention; the Montgomery Boycott succeded due to local economic pressure.

The difference in the way the successful outcomes were achieved was that the Freedom Rides succeded due to federal intervention; the Montgomery Boycott succeded due to local economic pressure.  

In 1961, white and African American people protested against the public transportation segregation in the South. These people called themselves the “Freedom Riders” and tried to use facilities just allowed for white people. This caused police to intervene and arrested them.

In Montgomery, Alabama, citizens refused to ride buses from December 5, 1955 to December 20. 1956, to protest the arrest of black woman Rosa Parks, who denied to give her seat to a white passenger.  

Both, the Montgomery Boycott and the Freedom Rides were successful in that they resulted in the integration of transportation.

the articles of confederation only set up the continental congress at the federal level. there were no executive or judicial branches except within the states. the states were allowed to keep every right that was not specifically given to congress. the bonding of the states was through a 'firm league of friendship' that best served as a defense agreement against invasion. states were not allowed to use taxes as a way to discourage treaties, and states were extremely limited in their dealings with foreign nations.

not many historians today talk about the strengths of the articles of confederation, likely because of how unpopular the document quickly became. the articles did set the legislative body, congress, as the highest power in the nation because of the fear of monarchy. congress had the sole power to declare war, assign treaties, entertain foreign relations, and operate post offices. disputes between states and territorial issues were to be brought to congress. the document also stipulated that canada was allowed to enter the union if they desired.

there were more weaknesses than strengths under the articles of confederation. the lack of power given to the continental congress strangled the federal government. the articles gave congress the power to pass laws but no power to enforce those laws. if a state did not support a federal law, that state could simply ignore it. congress had no power to levy taxes or regulate trade. without a federal court system or executive leader, there would be no way to enforce these laws, either. amending the articles of confederation would also require a unanimous decision, which would be extremely difficult.

as the maasai legends tell, "in the beginning of the world, enkai was the only god: the guardian of rain, fertility, sun, and love. with that love, enkai birthed three sons." solución