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
Dmitriy789 [7]
2 years ago
9

In what ways could whites in the South justify imposing Jim Crow laws despite The Declaration of Independence declaring “all men

are created equal?”
History
1 answer:
cluponka [151]2 years ago
4 0

Answer:

When the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, it was a call for the right to statehood rather than individual liberties, says Stanford historian Jack Rakove. Only after the American Revolution did people interpret it as a promise for individual equality. On July 4, 1776, when the Continental Congress adopted the historic text drafted by Thomas Jefferson, they did not intend it to mean individual equality. Rather, what they declared was that American colonists, as a people, had the same rights to self-government as other nations. Because they possessed this fundamental right, Rakove said, they could establish new governments within each of the states and collectively assume their “separate and equal station” with other nations. It was only in the decades after the American Revolutionary War that the phrase acquired its compelling reputation as a statement of individual equality.

Here, Rakove reflects on this history and how now, in a time of heightened scrutiny of the country’s founders and the legacy of slavery and racial injustices they perpetuated, Americans can better understand the limitations and failings of their past governments.

Rakove is the William Robertson Coe Professor of History and American Studies and professor of political science, emeritus, in the School of Humanities and Sciences. His book, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (1996), won the Pulitzer Prize in History. His new book, Beyond Belief, Beyond Conscience: The Radical Significance of the Free Exercise of Religion will be published next month.

With the U.S. confronting its history of systemic racism, are there any problems that Americans are reckoning with today that can be traced back to the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution?

I view the Declaration as a point of departure and a promise, and the Constitution as a set of commitments that had lasting consequences – some troubling, others transformative. The Declaration, in its remarkable concision, gives us self-evident truths that form the premises of the right to revolution and the capacity to create new governments resting on popular consent. The original Constitution, by contrast, involved a set of political commitments that recognized the legal status of slavery within the states and made the federal government partially responsible for upholding “the peculiar institution.” As my late colleague Don Fehrenbacher argued, the Constitution was deeply implicated in establishing “a slaveholders’ republic” that protected slavery in complex ways down to 1861.

But the Reconstruction amendments of 1865-1870 marked a second constitutional founding that rested on other premises. Together they made a broader definition of equality part of the constitutional order, and they gave the national government an effective basis for challenging racial inequalities within the states. It sadly took far too long for the Second Reconstruction of the 1960s to implement that commitment, but when it did, it was a fulfillment of the original vision of the 1860s. As people critically examine the country’s founding history, what might they be surprised to learn from your research that can inform their understanding of American history today? Two things. First, the toughest question we face in thinking about the nation’s founding pivots on whether the slaveholding South should have been part of it or not. If you think it should have been, it is difficult to imagine how the framers of the Constitution could have attained that end without making some set of “compromises” accepting the legal existence of slavery. When we discuss the Constitutional Convention, we often praise the compromise giving each state an equal vote in the Senate, and condemn the Three Fifths Clause allowing the southern states to count their slaves for purposes of political representation. But where the quarrel between large and small states had nothing to do with the lasting interests of citizens – you never vote on the basis of the size of the state in which you live – slavery was a real and persisting interest that one had to accommodate for the Union to survive. Second, the greatest tragedy of American constitutional history was not the failure of the framers to eliminate slavery in 1787. That option was simply not available to them. The real tragedy was the failure of Reconstruction and the ensuing emergence of Jim Crow segregation in the late 19th century that took many decades to overturn. That was the great constitutional opportunity that Americans failed to grasp, perhaps because four years of Civil War and a decade of the military occupation of the South simply exhausted Northern public opinion. Even now, if you look at issues of voter suppression, we are still wrestling with its consequences.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
(03.02 HC)
docker41 [41]

The skepticism about the empire of Ghana and the accounts for it is nothing weird because the majority of what is written about it is from two people from the same place, that had totally different views and interpretations on the things, and came from different culture.

Very often in the historical text, the people that wrote something have been very subjective, not objective. Thus the writings of these two Arab geographers can be very misleading, as they described what they saw with their own eyes, but also with using their own perception. That has proven numerous times to give very inaccurate depictions of a society and culture, like the depictions of the Romans for the Celts, or of the Greeks for the Scythian female warriors that they named Amazons.

There's only one point of view unfortunately, and it is always much more reliable when multiple writings are available from people from multiple different backgrounds, or the best scenario if it is writings from the people in question.

5 0
3 years ago
Which statements describe a method kings and queens of Northern Europe used to gain power
ASHA 777 [7]
Where are the statement options?
8 0
3 years ago
What role did Neal Dow play in regulating America's use of alcohol?
lord [1]
A. He passed a statewide prohibition law stating it was illegal to make or sell alcohol. Neal S. Dow was the mayor of the city of Portland in Maine and was also a general in the Union Army during the Civil War. He was a highly controversial character who once ordered for a troop to fire on a crowd, where he killed one person, and then was tried for this. He then became a leader of the Temperance Movement, following his political career. The temperance movement is a movement against the consumption of alcohol, something he stood for the whole of his life.
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Describe how John Adams handled foreign conflicts, including wars and the XYZ Affair. Was his foreign policy position different
Artemon [7]

Answer:

please explain what you mean so I can answer the question!

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
Why did the Soviets switch from the Axis to the Allies in 1941?
hjlf

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had a non aggression pact. When Germany's attempt to conquer England failed Hitler turned his attention to the Soviet Union. When Germany broke the treaty with the Soviet Union the Soviet Union asked to join the Allies in the fight against the Axis Powers.

hope this helps!

4 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Will give Brainliest! if right!
    5·2 answers
  • What was the relationship between climate, architecture, and power in 12th century Cambodia?
    6·1 answer
  • Why were famine and bread important when considering the causes of the French Revolution?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following statements describes Italian Renaissance art? Select all the accurate descriptions. A. They rarely depict
    8·2 answers
  • Please HELP.
    5·1 answer
  • Help ill give free brain leist
    9·2 answers
  • 11 please… i’ll mark BRAINLEST :3
    9·2 answers
  • Shortly after Pearl Harbor was bombed, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 (Feb. 1942). What did Executive
    9·2 answers
  • How to delete account from this app​
    12·1 answer
  • The actions of which country finally forced the United States to enter the war?
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!