Every country has a national anthem. Most/many/all sing their national anthem at their sporting events. The Texas law does not require anyone to sing it, but only for the teams receiving taxpayer dollars to play it as has been the tradition for many years. Do you approve of this bipartisan (supported by both political parties) bill becoming law? Explain your answer.

here are some major conflicts i found. maybe pick one and do more research on it. (cause i ain't writing 6 paragraphs)

in 1877, the nez perce war took place.

1881 - president james garfield was assassinated.

1882 - the chinese exclusion act was passed.

1883 - a decision in the civil rights cases legalized racial segregation in the united states.

1887 - the dawes act was passed.

1893 - the panic of 1893 took place. (what a creative name)

and there are probably other topics you can find if you just search up "united states timeline," or "conflicts in the 19th century for america."

then once you find a topic you like find out how it affected the people of america and what not. (sorry if this feels a bit short changed, history was and never will be one of my strong topics)

i also think it is c

it was certainly a debatable decision, mainly because it was based primarily on political - and not on legal or social - views. since the congress at that time was led by members of the republican party, and the territory that the tribes wanted to turn into an exclusively indian state was predominantly democratic, the proposal (as expressed in the constitution) did not succeed, but the constitution itself proved to be of crucial importance in the creation of the state of oklahoma, and, most importantly, it guaranteed the involvement of representatives of the indian tribes in the government of the future joint state.  

as a member of congress, i would have voted to ratify the constitution, or at least to have it tabled. ignoring it was an interested and partial decision.