Answer: in 1896, segregation was viewed as perfectly constitutional and unproblematic as whites wished to be separate from African Americans. Yet during the period of time between 1896 and 1954 the evils of segregation where exposed as the separate accommodations for minorities provided by the white governments in southern states under Jim Crow we’re almost never equal in quality to the ones reserved for whites which is why the Supreme Court overturned plessy by ruling in Brown V Board that everyone regardless of race deserved equal protection under the law according to the 14th amendment
Explanation:
The best answer in that set would seem to be "compromise." I'm not sure I'd use exactly that term, but it's the best term from the set of answers given. Count Camillo di Cavour was prime minister of the Kingdom of Sardinia, serving under King Victor Emmanuel II. This was a time in history (in the 19th century) when prime ministers were starting to exercise more control of policy than the kings themselves. It was also a time of something that came to be known a "Realpolitik" (a German term), or "realistic politics." So I'd say Cavour was a political realist who chose paths of action that would benefit his overall aims, whether or not they fit some specific ideology or master plan. I suppose "compromise" would be another way of saying that, but I'd prefer to say he practiced political realism.
<span>here were two significant issues involving slavery in the writing of the Constitution. The first issue was how to count slaves for the purpose of determining the number of a state’s representatives in the House of Representatives. The North didn’t want the slaves to count at all while the South wanted the slaves to be fully counted. Since political power was at stake, each side wanted its view to prevail. A compromise, called the Three-Fifths...</span>
