"Not far from this time Nat Turner’s insurrection [a slave rebellion] broke out; and the news threw our town into great commotion. . . . "It was always the custom to have a muster every year. On that occasion every White man shouldered his musket. The citizens and the so-called country gentlemen wore military uniforms. . . .

"I knew the houses were to be searched; and I expected it would be done by country bullies and the poor Whites. . . .

"It was a grand opportunity for the low Whites, who had no Negroes of their own to scourge. They exulted in such a chance to exercise a little brief authority, and show their subserviency to the slaveholders; not reflecting that the power which trampled on the colored people also kept themselves in poverty, ignorance, and moral degradation. . . . Colored people and slaves who lived in remote parts of the town suffered in an especial manner. In some cases the searchers scattered [gun]powder and shot among

monarchy doesn’t have to have the hereditary element. there have been elective monarchies in the past where you choose your king-for-life and when he dies elect someone else for the job.

the correct answer is option d

the economy will face inflation

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.