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
krek1111 [17]
3 years ago
13

Why did the southern states being passed jim crow laws when reconstruction ended

History
1 answer:
AlexFokin [52]3 years ago
4 0
They wanted to create laws that didn't directly interfere with the laws that had been put forth by the government. Therefore they created laws that required 'humanly' things of people that the blacks wouldn't have had the chance to do. As an example, if you were to apply for a job your grandfather had to have also been employed. For more whites, this wasn't an issue. But for blacks, their grandparents may not have been in America, and if they were, they were most likely slaves.
You might be interested in
In the late 1800s thousands of immigrants came from what country to build farms in california
Amanda [17]
True. If that is what you were asking for?
3 0
3 years ago
Which naval force kept General Cornwallis and his troops from escaping Yorktown? A. The Spanish navy. B. The British navy. C. Th
Studentka2010 [4]
The answer is B hope this helps
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did President Johnson clash politically with the Radical Republicans?
Temka [501]

B) Radical Republicans thought Johnson was too harsh toward the South.

Johnson's refusal to support the legislation that had united the Republican majority in Congress proved fatal to his program, for it had driven the moderates into the Radical camp. ... By passing the Civil Rights Bill, the Republicans had shown their commitment to civil rights for blacks.

8 0
2 years ago
What is a DNA often bundled into
JulijaS [17]
Chromosomes is what DNA is bundled into :)
7 0
3 years ago
For either Mapp v. Ohio or Miranda v. Arizona, describe the constitutional issue of the case, and explain how the court's ruling
Lubov Fominskaja [6]

The case <em>Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</em> was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the court established that prosecutors cannot use a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial, unless the person was informed of what is known as "Miranda warning," but voluntarily waived these rights.

A "Miranda warning" is an explanation given to people arrested that informs them of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. It also informs them of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. The court's ruling protect those accused of a crime because it prevents them from incriminating themselves. It also reminds them of the importance of an attorney for achieving a successful trial.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Why did both the union and the confederacy consider control of the border states crucial?
    6·1 answer
  • Which is not a claim that Kennedy made?
    11·2 answers
  • It says which route on the mao above represents Christopher columbus's first voyage help please
    10·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements is true about the Federalists?
    14·1 answer
  • In which type of economy does the government control all of the factors of production
    11·2 answers
  • Rome’s mountains made it easy for invaders to attack <br><br> True or false
    11·1 answer
  • What comprise was reached in the Constitutional Convention?
    7·1 answer
  • Who is the plaintiff in a criminal court case?
    10·2 answers
  • This group settled closest to the Bering Straight, where a land bridge formed 15-20 thousand
    10·1 answer
  • Is this statement true or false?
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!