Jim Crow Laws enforced segregation between black and white people. The court case "Plessy Vs Ferguson" was trying to please people by enforcing the "separate but equal" law. Basically, they wanted to make the two races separate, but they thought it would be fine as long as both places were the same in quality and quantity.
To sum it up, Jim Crow Laws were to separate the two, but black people were given schools that weren't as good, trashy bathrooms, etc. It was also made to make sure that black people could not go some places on certain days, or at all. The "Plessy vs Ferguson" case was to try to make it better by separating the races, but having both bathrooms the same and both schools the same so none is better than the other.
I hope I helped.
Answer:
Your answer is doctrine of federal preemption
Answer:
Quakers were allowed to practice their religion freely and without persecution
Explanation:
Quakers had religious freedom in pennsylvania. The colonoybwas established by a fellow quaker called william Penn. King charles was his friend and he did not want to kill him. In other to avoid being persecuted, he was given grant to get land.
It was a very good place to settle with philadelphia being the most developed city the continent had. As proprietor, william Penn granted religious freedom and tolerance to all.
Answer: “Birth of a Nation”—D. W. Griffith’s disgustingly racist yet titanically original 1915 feature—back to the fore. The movie, set mainly in a South Carolina town before and after the Civil War, depicts slavery in a halcyon light, presents blacks as good for little but subservient labor, and shows them, during Reconstruction, to have been goaded by the Radical Republicans into asserting an abusive dominion over Southern whites. It depicts freedmen as interested, above all, in intermarriage, indulging in legally sanctioned excess and vengeful violence mainly to coerce white women into sexual relations. It shows Southern whites forming the Ku Klux Klan to defend themselves against such abominations and to spur the “Aryan” cause overall. The movie asserts that the white-sheet-clad death squad served justice summarily and that, by denying blacks the right to vote and keeping them generally apart and subordinate, it restored order and civilization to the South.
“Birth of a Nation,” which runs more than three hours, was sold as a sensation and became one; it was shown at gala screenings, with expensive tickets. It was also the subject of protest by civil-rights organizations and critiques by clergymen and editorialists, and for good reason: “Birth of a Nation” proved horrifically effective at sparking violence against blacks in many cities. Given these circumstances, it’s hard to understand why Griffith’s film merits anything but a place in the dustbin of history, as an abomination worthy solely of autopsy in the study of social and aesthetic pathology.
