Jim Crow was not a real person but a depiction of African American people.
They enforced segregation.
An example is segregated schooling.
They were allowed as long as they were separate but equal
<span>Despite his personal opposition to slavery, when President Abraham Lincoln took office in 1861 he insisted that his constitutional duty was to keep the nation together, not to abolish slavery. He conducted the first year of the war with the goal of reuniting the Union, but wartime events, including heavy military losses and the many slaves who escaped behind Union battle lines, forced him to contend with the issue of slavery. He issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862 and the final version on January 1, 1863, fundamentally changing the meaning of the war.</span>
Old Light preachers believed that religion should be practiced in a rational way, New Light preachers propagated emotion in religion.
Answer:
Mount Vesuvius
Explanation:
Mount Vesuvius, the volcano located to the northwest of the ancient Roman city of Pompeii, has erupted many times throughout recorded history. ... That eruption also destroyed the cities of Herculaneum, Stabiae, Torre Annunziata, and other nearby communities.
Answer:
The decisions in Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Mapp v. Ohio are very important to defendants in criminal proceedings today because they enlarged defendants' rights in criminal trials and investigations.
Thus, Miranda v. Arizona refers to the fact that those accused of a crime must know their rights prior to being questioned by the police, that is, that everything they say can be used against them and that they have the right to consult a lawyer.
For its part, Gideon v. Wainwright guaranteed the defendants the right to have a lawyer, even when they could not afford it on their own financial means. In this way, a defendant is not left legally unprotected for not being able to afford a lawyer, since it is the state that grants him one for free.
Finally, Mapp v. Ohio prohibits the use of illegitimately obtained evidence in criminal proceedings. Thus, non-compliance with the Fourth Amendment (and the consequent search without a warrant) renders the evidence obtained in this way not admissible in court.
