The author first develops his claim by exclaiming how president Harrison advocated for African American rights and their justice. The author states that the republicans want Harrison to promote this bill mainly for the support they are receiving from African Americans. However, this decision by Harrison was a big influence on the Lodge Bill. Also, this develops debate of african american rights which is still discussed today.

The author not only develops irony once again, but also establishes the other side of the argument. The Democrats are fearing that this bill can cause the Republicans to dominate the government and increase their supporters. However, the previous paragraph establishes the irony of the situation, which is making the audience look at the newspaper editor's quote in a negative perspective. The author's attempt in providing both sides of the argument enforces his crediblity

This is very ironic because this bill was actually trying to help the African Americans gain support and protect, which is supposed to be the government's job. More so of irony, this creates sarcasm as through this, the audience understands why the author is criticizing them. This choice of rhetorical appeal is very effective as it allows the audience to see the democrats' silly ideas and decisions.

This system is still used today and is a popular form of system all over the world. The author includes this as a sign of relief as in how even out of something bad, a good thing was produced. Rather than simply listing out the bad things from this era, he also listed what good things came out of this. By doing this, the audience understands that he is not biased and improves his credibility. Also, the inclusion of the definition is needed here as some people may not know the meaning of the unit system.

The author tries to derive emotional support from the audience by the inclusion of this quote. This quote attacks racism and explains how the South will forever keep the african americans inferior to the whites. Although this happened a long time ago and it is not fully true today, it makes the audience think of Black Lives Matter and other important movements and realize how this still exists today.

This is a shift in the article as the author was talking about how the bill was still up to debate and the support was split up evenly, but after this, everything went down for Lodge's bill and the democrat senators eventually succeeded. This shift signifies the author's main idea that a small minority has the ability to dictate the entire government using harmful methods such as filibustering.

The author ends by claiming that Lodge's bill was not the only thing that delayed African American rights, a common misconception to his article. By ending the article like this, the audience understands that the Lodge's bill was stopped by senators filibustering. Only in the previous article did the author establish how filibustering is harmful to the society and he once again brings this topic to let the public be more aware of this prevalent issue.

The author claims how the African Americans had to create a similar movement to the Colored Farmers' Alliance with similar goals. This develops the author's purpose on how segregation has not been reduced even after the civil war, and this information can be used on why Whites want to continue holding their supremacy. Also, the audience can connect this with the Black Lives Movement as that too tried to fight for injustice toward african americans.

The author develops his final claim which is that after the Lodge Bill was dropped, many counties/states started to face similar problems, which ended as a result favoring the whites dominance. As a result, the author is stating that the filibustering of the Lodge's bill delayed the justice for African Americans and continued White segregationist policies.

The author starts off by personifying "the bill" as something that was supposed to save millions of Americans, but rather was killed by Senators. He immediately provides a brief overview of the claim of his essay before developing his narrative. This way, the audience gets a glimpse of the issue that the author will tackle. Also, by using words such as "intransigent and reactionary", the audience already understands that the author is going to be criticizing the senators for their action.

The author starts the paragraph by explaining the Republicans as people who are "devoted to Trump". This makes it seem as Trump were god and everyone has to follow his orders. It gives both a humorous appeal to the audience and illustrates to them the sly techniques that the Republicans are using to escape from punishment. Furthermore, when the author said that the Republicans were ready to propose a veto against the popular vote, it was very ironic. As senators, they are supposed to give constitutional rights to the citizens, but rather they are taking it away for their own purpose. This further emphasizes the extent at which Republicans do not want to lose power to the Democrats.

He ends with his purpose by contrasting the two parties. He praises the Democrats for their ability to stop this nonsense, and he gives an example of a hypothetical situation where Republicans are in control. However, from his diction and negative connotation, one can predict that that society would be dangerous for the public. Overall, he enforces that although Republicans are trying to suppress the voters from voting, the Democrats can succeed if extra support is provided.

The author tries to explain that what he is illustrating is euphemism or putting something harsh in a kinder manner. He is either trying to explain to the audience that these are simply understatements of what the Republic actually does or criticize the Republicans for ignoring the public and following the rules only when it was beneficial. The word "euphemism" tries to sum up the whole essay.

Although Sinema is the Democratic candidate, she comes from a Republican state who already started to limit voters from certain ballots. By including these examples, the author emphasizes that action needs to be taken seriously as states such as Arizona have already started "trumpifying." Also, this shifts her discussion to the main claim, which is that Republicans are stopping some voters from voting as that can give Democrats some serious power.

The previous paragraph emphasizes the benefits of the HR.1 and how it specifically helped restore the voting system. However, in this paragraph, McConell exclaims that it is a vague attempt to benefit one party even though the Act was created to benefit the public. This illustrates to the readers the misuse of power by republican senators, which is one of the author's main points.

"Trumpified" is not an actual word in the dictionary, but rather is directed to the president of the United States. The author explains how the Trumpified party would try to eliminate democracy; this shows that he is also deeply against Trump's values. The idiom gives the readers a humorical representation of the author's beliefs toward Trump and the Republican Party.

The author uses multiple dashes in this paragraph to show the different ways that the republicans will go to stop the Democrats from gaining power. The dashes emphasizes the extent at which republicans are willing to restrict votes. Without the dashes, it would simply sound as an example of what Republicans are doing, but the dashes creates a pause and further emphasis. Also, from John Lewis, the claim shifted to the extreme techniques that Republicans are using to stop Democratic power from taking over.

The author is praising the Democrats and displays a satisfied tone as he exclaims how because of people like John Lewis, every voter has equal access to the ballot. This can also provide context on the wider issue that the author is describing. By praising Democrats, it is clear that the author is most likely a Democrat and thus, it is clear that he will have a negative attitude toward Republicans.

This word filibuster is talked throughout the essay and how it is an impedance to enacting a law or right quickly. The author senses that the person reading this article is educated about political terms and therefore does not feel a need to clarify the term. Also, using previous knowledge, filibusters are one example of what the Congress uses to drag on the bill without coming to a solution. Therefore, the readers are aware that the author is taking a criticizing perspective on either the Congress or parts of the congress.

John Lewis is a representative who advocated for some important changes in the federal system, but unfortunately, they were never approved. Barack Obama exaggerates that he was "willing to die for" this purpose or goal he was trying to achieve. This just hints that some act was Lewis's life time goal, but he died before, it could become a reality. When Obama exclaims lets "honor hum by revitalizing the law", it foreshadows that this will be about an essay on either the law getting approved or why it still hasn't been approved.

The author finishes by once again restating his claim on explaining how the Republicans and some officials fail to fix the problem but rather creates more mistakes and arguments. The author developed his claim throughout the essay by adding contents to his argument as the essay goes on. For example, in here, he added the information about the Democrats to attribute that he recognizes their effort. Also, through the many examples that he provided, it makes the audience see the different ways that these officials have avoided conflict and brought up irrelevant information instead.

Biden is a democrat. For most of the essay, the author was looking on the republican side of the topic and addresses Democrats to show the audience that he understands that the Democrats are trying hard but their effort would not be enough unless everyone participates. I learned from the They Say, I say that it is important for a person to visualize both sides of the argument to make an argument of their own. They Say I Say book

Once again, the author uses examples from the Georgian senate debate that happened only recently. He is once again is utilizing quotes from esteemed individuals to further emphasize his claim. In the beginning of this paragraph, he even utilizes a humorous appeal by claiming how Trump is an easy target to reflect on his credibility as he understands that providing one example would not be sufficient and thus provides more.

Donald Trump is a famous politician who was the President of the United States. By describing Trump and even using quotes from him, he utilizes with what the audience already knows and then connects it to his claim. This improves the author's credibility as he is providing many examples of different esteemed individuals to assert his claim to the audience and make them understand the government's role in a crisis.

The author finally jumps to the overall purpose, goal, or claim of the essay: to criticize the government officials(specifically Republicans) for their inability to fix their problems and create distracting disputes instead.

The author is asking a rhetorical question and answering it immediately. He is doing this not only to clear one of the audience's questions regarding the consequences of Texas situations, but also to make the government officials more guilty for leaving Texas in this situation.

The author has a criticizing tone, which can be implied by him emphasizing Texas's conditions using a negative diction. It is kind of humorous as he stated "cultural wars" instead of disputes. Usually wars leave a drastic impact on the land, but this time, the "war" is occurring on an already destroyed land, which reflects the author's point of view that leaving a conflict dissolved is worse than creating a new conflict.

Rather than taking charge of the action, the governor blamed the fault on the renewable energy and claims that he did the best possible thing he could do for the country. This once again develops the author claim as this now emphasizes that the author wants to criticize these officials for not only ignoring the crisis as a whole, but also blaming the crisis on other people or things.

The addition of the statistic helps the author situate the context and explains why a call to action is needed immediately. The tone is also regretful and serious to invoke sympathy feelings from the audience and make them understand the bigger crisis that is happening in Texas.