Question

Read the excerpt from the US Supreme court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The statute of Louisiana, acts of 1890, c. 111, requiring railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that State, to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations; and providing that no person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to; and requiring the officer of the passenger train to assign each passenger to the coach or compartment assigned for the race to which he or she belong; and imposing fines or imprisonment upon passengers insisting on going into a coach or compartment other than the one set aide for the race to which he or she belongs; and conferring upon officers of the train power to refuse to carry on the train passengers refusing to occupy the coach or compartment assigned to them, and exempting the railway company from liability for such refusal, are not in conflict with the provisions either of the Thirteenth Amendment or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Which best explains why the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional?

Answer 1

Answer:

The correct answer is D.

The Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional because it was not consistent with the 14th ammenment.

The 14th ammendment grants citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who were emancipated after the American Civil War.

Segregation laws were explicitly againts the ammendment because they did not provide equal protection and liberties to non-whites. By forcing them to sit separated from white people, african-americans were being banned from fully excersing their rights.

Explanation:

Answer 2

Answer:

D.) Since segregation laws did not provide equal protections or liberties to non-whites, the ruling was not consistent with the 14th Amendment.