All categories

3 years ago

What effect did the decision in Brown v. Board of Education have on colleges in the South?

History

1 answer:

erica [24]3 years ago

7 0

Answer: D. It led to a series of battles over integration.

Explanation:

Brown v. Board of Education occured in 1954 and it was a Supreme Court case whereby the justices involved ruled that the segregation of children racially in the public schools was not constitutional.

The effect that this decision had on colleges in the South was that led to a series of battles over integration. It brought about the defiance by Southern Blacks to punitive Jim Crow laws, while the Southern whites supported segregation and this brought about standoff fir example, the one that occured in 1957 in Little Rock high school in Arkansas.

You might be interested in

Follow the chain of the "I have... Who Has" descriptions and put them in order.

Slav-nsk [51]

Answer:

I have the Sugar Act.

Who has the tax on sugar, molasses, and other goods?

I have the Stamp Act.

Who has the tax on legal documents and newspapers, almanacs, playing cards, etc.?

I have the Pontiac's War.

Who has the Indian forces that fought the colonist from moving west of the Appalachian Mountains into Indian land after the French and Indian War?

I have the Navigation Acts.

Who has the series of laws from the 1650s that regulated trade between England and its colonies to ensure the practice of mercantilism?

I have the Townshend Acts/Writs of Assistance.

Who has the taxes on tea, glass, and lead, paper, and paint… and illegal search warrants to stop smuggling?

I have the sons and Daughters of Liberty.

Who has the men and women who took up the cause of liberty? “No taxation, without representation!”

I have the Quartering Act.

Who has the law passed that forced colonists to house soldiers in their homes and provide them with supplies?

I have the towns of Lexington and Concord.

Who has the site of the first battles of the revolution in Massachusetts? "Shot heard round the world."

I have the Proclamation of 1763.

Who has the law banning westward settlement past the Appalachian Mountains because it was too costly?

I have the Boston Tea Party.

Who has the event where colonist dressed as Indians and dumped 342 chest of tea into Boston Harbor to protest the Tea Act?

I have the Declaration of Independence.

Who has the 1776 document stating why the 13 colonies were a free and independent nation?

I have the French and Indian War.

Who has the war between the British and French over the land in the Ohio River Valley?

I have the Committees of Correspondence.

Who has the group of people that reported events in their colony to other colonies by writing letters back and forth?

I have the Intolerable Acts.

Who has the laws meant to punish colonists in Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party that closed Boston port, new Quartering Act, and banned local government?

I have the Boston Massacre.

Who has the clash between British soldiers and Bostonians were 5 citizens were killed?

I have the First Continental Congress.

Who has the meeting of delegates from all colonies except Georgia to uphold colonial rights?

I have the Tea Act.

Who has the law that forced colonists to buy their tea from the British East India Company for a higher price?

I have the Militia/Minutemen.

Who has the army of citizen soldiers, who are trained and ready to fight at a "minutes" notice?

Hope that helps.

8 0

3 years ago

What did Lincoln do to provoke war?

Reptile [31]

Southern leaders of the Civil War period placed the blame for the outbreak of fighting squarely on Lincoln<span>. They accused the President of acting aggressively towards the South and of deliberately provoking war in order to overthrow the Confederacy. For its part, the Confederacy sought a peaceable accommodation of its legitimate claims to independence, and resorted to measures of self-defence only when threatened by Lincoln's coercive policy. Thus, Confederate vice president, Alexander H. Stephens, claimed that the war was "inaugurated by Mr. Lincoln." Stephens readily acknowledged that General </span>Beauregard's troops fired the "first gun." But, he argued, the larger truth is that "in personal or national conflicts, it is not he who strikes the first blow, or fires the first gun that inaugurates or begins the conflict." Rather, the true aggressor is "the first who renders force necessary."

Stephens identified the beginning of the war as Lincoln's order sending a "hostile fleet, styled the 'Relief Squadron'," to reinforce Fort Sumter. "The war was then and there inaugurated and begun by the authorities at Washington. General Beauregard did not open fire upon Fort Sumter until this fleet was, to his knowledge, very near the harbor of Charleston, and until he had inquired of Major Anderson . . . whether he would engage to take no part in the expected blow, then coming down upon him from the approaching fleet . . . When Major Anderson . . .would make no such promise, it became necessary for General Beauregard to strike the first blow, as he did; otherwise the forces under his command might have been exposed to two fires at the same time-- one in front, and the other in the rear." The use of force by the Confederacy , therefore, was in "self-defence," rendered necessary by the actions of the other side.

Jefferson Davis, who, like Stephens, wrote his account after the Civil War, took a similar position. Fort Sumter was rightfully South Carolina's property after secession, and the Confederate government had shown great "forbearance" in trying to reach an equitable settlement with the federal government. But the Lincoln administration destroyed these efforts by sending "a hostile fleet" to Sumter. "The attempt to represent us as the aggressors," Davis argued, "is as unfounded as the complaint made by the wolf against the lamb in the familiar fable. He who makes the assault is not necessarily he that strikes the first blow or fires the first gun."

From Davis's point of view, to permit the strengthening of Sumter, even if done in a peaceable manner, was unacceptable. It meant the continued presence of a hostile threat to Charleston. Further, although the ostensible purpose of the expedition was to resupply, not reinforce the fort, the Confederacy had no guarantee that Lincoln would abide by his word. And even if he restricted his actions to resupply in this case, what was to prevent him from attempting to reinforce the fort in the future? Thus, the attack on Sumter was a measure of "defense." To have acquiesced in the fort's relief, even at the risk of firing the first shot, "would have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down the arm of the assailant, who levels a deadly weapon at one's breast, until he has actually fired."

In the twentieth century, this critical view of Lincoln's actions gained a wide audience through the writings of Charles W. Ramsdell and others. According to Ramsdell, the situation at Sumter presented Lincoln with a series of dilemmas. If he took action to maintain the fort, he would lose the border South and a large segment of northern opinion which wanted to conciliate the South. If he abandoned the fort, he jeopardized the Union by legitimizing the Confederacy. Lincoln also hazarded losing the support of a substantial portion of his own Republican Party, and risked appearing a weak and ineffective leader.

Lincoln could escape these predicaments, however, if he could induce southerners to attack Sumter, "to assume the aggressive and thus put themselves in the wrong in the eyes of the North and of the world." By sending a relief expedition, ostensibly to provide bread to a hungry garrison, Lincoln turned the tables on the Confederates, forcing them to choose whether to permit the fort to be strengthened, or to act as the aggressor. By this "astute strategy," Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.

7 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Summarize the impact and achlevements of the American Indian Association and the National Farm Workers

Mrac [35]

Yea why she was mad and mad she said I didn’t get to know she got mad and mad I got a bad dream and then

3 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

How were the three regions of the country divided economically, politically,

GalinKa [24]

The two sides of the debate over slavery were divided between the two main sections of the United States; the North and South. Many Northerners viewed slavery as evil and wrong and some were involved in the abolitionist movement. The North did not obey fugitive slave laws because they said they were cruel and inhumane. No states in the North allowed slavery and the North and the abolitionists who lived there harbored fugitive slaves and helped them escape to Canada along the Underground Railroad. In the South, on the other hand, the people said that slavery was necessary to their way of life even though the majority of southerners did not even own slaves. Those who did own slaves, said slavery was good for the slaves because they were cared for in every way and given a job and that slavery was good for the slave owners because it allowed southern whites to achieve a high level of culture.

5 0

3 years ago

Question 2 of 20 Why should people learn the skill of connecting the past and present? O A. To find out what people in the past

Korolek [52]

Answer:

its a

Explanation:

4 0

3 years ago