When the 1905 sequoyah convention ratified their state constitution and submitted it to congress, congress chose to ignore it. do you feel this was the right decision? if you had been a member of congress in 1905, would you have voted to ratify the sequoyah constitution, voted against it, or tried to have it tabled? defend your choice.

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.  

though africans landed with few possessions, they carried their cultures, skills, and spiritual worldviews into the americas. wherever african religions took root in the new world, africans and their descendants changed and adapted their belief systems to local circumstances and influences. individual circumstances created variations in the way people practiced their faiths, what they believed, and what significance it held for their lives.

explanation:

mark brainliest!

a social contract.

"a social contract is an agreement between citizens and their leader where the citizens give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection. the constitution of the united states is an example of a social contract."