1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Alenkinab [10]
3 years ago
5

Plessy v. Ferguson was a Supreme Court decision that stayed?

History
1 answer:
Dovator [93]3 years ago
3 0

<em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em> (1896) was a Supreme Court decision that upheld the principle of "separate but equal" in regard to racial segregation. The Court's decision  said that separate, segregated public facilities were acceptable as long as the facilities offered were equal in quality.  

In the decades after the Civil War, states in the South began to pass laws that sought to keep white and black society separate.  In the 1880s, a number of  state legislatures began to pass laws requiring railroads to provide separate cars for passengers who were black.  At the heart of the case that became <em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em> was an 1890 law passed in Louisiana in 1890 that required railroads to provide "separate railway carriages for the white and colored races.”

In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was 1/8 black, bought a first class train railroad ticket, took a seat in the whites only section, and then informed the conductor that he was part black.  He was removed from the train and jailed.  He argued for his civil rights before Judge John Howard Ferguson and was found guilty.  His case went all the way to the Supreme Court which at that time upheld the idea of "separate but equal" facilities.

Several decades later, the 1896 <em>Plessy v. Ferguson </em>decision was overturned.  <em>Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka</em>, decided by the US Supreme Court in 1954, extended civil liberties to all Americans in regard to access to education. The "separate but equal" principle of <em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em> had been applied to education as it had been to transportation.   In the case of <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em>, that standard was challenged and defeated.  Segregation was shown to create inequality, and the Supreme Court unanimously ruled segregation to be unconstitutional.

You might be interested in
Why did most of president wilson's cabinet members support the british?
Damm [24]
dose this have multi answer choices??
6 0
3 years ago
-5. What 3 groups invaded Europe during this timeframe in the lesson? And from where did the invasions come?
Vika [28.1K]
What’s the time frame?
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
In order to overcome his greatest obstacle to implementing his New Deal reform measures, President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempt
denpristay [2]

Answer:

increase the size of the Supreme Court so that he could appoint justices who would supply rulings favorable to him

Explanation:

The US Supreme Court first provoked public protests when, in May 1935, during an unprecedented economic crisis, the NIRA (National Industrial Recovery Act), which entered into force on June 16, 1933, was declared unconstitutional. This act became part of the New Deal of Roosevelt to save the country. Like other laws initiated by Roosevelt and adopted during the first “100 days,” the NIRA was extraordinary, well thought out and had one goal - to prevent huge social shocks that could cause an economic crisis at any moment. It was no accident that he was enthusiastically perceived by both businessmen and ordinary workers and employees of America.

However, the laws of the “New Deal” were literally passed in the 'fire order,' with the procedure for adoption curtailed, so the judges of the Armed Forces had arguments to declare them incompatible with the US Constitution. In January 1936, the Supreme Court’s decision abolished the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) system, which was designed to save and restore the country's agriculture - imposing a tax on firms processing agricultural products, which, according to the judges of the Supreme Court, was contrary to the constitution.

In total, from January 1935 to May 1936, the US Supreme Court declared 11 laws that were passed by Congress in 1933-1934 as unconstitutional. The most important changes introduced by the New Deal in the life of American society were threatened, which caused widespread discontent among the population. The actions of the Supreme Court were opposed by the organized labor movement of America. The "revolutionary situation" began to ripen in the country. The presidential election in 1936 was a kind of referendum in favor of the “New Deal” by Roosevelt, turning the Supreme Court into an object of sharp criticism from the indignant public. Under these conditions, on February 5, 1937, Roosevelt sent a message to Congress on the plan of reform of the Supreme Court, which provided for a significant expansion of its composition. Although Congress did not accept the draft, it became apparent that the Supreme Court could no longer remain in its original position. Soon, the judges of the Supreme Court recognized the National Act on Labor Relations as constitutional. In May 1937, the Constitutional Law on Social Insurance was also successfully tested for constitutionality, and in 1939, also the Law on the Regulation of Agriculture of 1938. In essence, under pressure from the public, a legal 'amnesty' for the New Deal's socio-economic reforms took place.

3 0
3 years ago
Which statement about child labor during the<br> Progressive Era does the graph support?
Aleksandr [31]
Child labor was on the rise until people began fighting for the welfare of children
8 0
3 years ago
This Supreme Court ruling stated slaves did not have a right to sue since they were not citizens, but merely property. Dred Scot
erik [133]
DRED SCOTT DECISION where the Supreme Court ruling stated slaves did not have a right to sue since they were not citizens, but merely property.

These were their arguments.
<span>Dred Scott:
When a person enters a free State or territory, the free status overrides the previous condition of servitude. Since slavery was forbidden in the free States and territories by
federal and State laws, Dred Scott became free when he entered Illinois and Wisconsin.</span><span>

Sandford:
To deprive a person of property (in this case, Dred Scott) without due process or just compensation violated the 5th Amendment, which states that “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a State or federal law.</span>

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which Indian tribe lived in the Cordilleran region of Canada?
    13·1 answer
  • What are some of the principles that the Founding Fathers developed in the formation of the new nation
    14·1 answer
  • How was the treaty of Versailles harsh on German citizens
    8·2 answers
  • Која личност је приказана на фотографији ?​
    13·1 answer
  • What motivated the violence perpetrated by Bosnian Serbs during the 1990s?
    11·1 answer
  • which statement best describes the effect of the freedmen's bureau during reconstruction south carolina
    7·1 answer
  • What is the difference between rose and cabbage?​
    6·2 answers
  • What do the native chiefs have to say to the “white man” about their existence after the Europeans arrival to the New World?
    15·1 answer
  • Letter From A Farmer (John Dickinson)
    5·1 answer
  • Who won the 1968 US presidential election by running on a platform of a “victory with honor” in Vietnam?
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!