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
What is one issue addressed by environmental policy?
Svetlanka [38]

Answer:

A.

updating zoning laws

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Population is increasing more rapidly in LDCs than in MDCs.<br> a. True<br> b. False
weeeeeb [17]
Then answer is true.
4 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
According to the pyramid of hate, which level best describes the Holocaust?
zloy xaker [14]

Answer:

Violence.

It affected the whole Jewish, but did not get rid of all Jewish.

6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of the following ethnic groups in the middle East unsuccessfully tried to gain it's own, independent state or country?
tekilochka [14]
Iran tried getting their own freedom from mohammad mossadegh, so they went to the US for help
4 0
3 years ago
What was James k. Polk’s contribution to the territory of the USA
Anni [7]

Answer:

A workaholic, America's new chief executive set an ambitious agenda with four major goals: cut tariffs, reestablish an independent U.S. Treasury, secure the Oregon Territory and acquire the territories of California and New Mexico from Mexico. Polk eventually achieved all his goals.

Explanation:

6 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • During the election of 1860 who did northern democrats nominate
    15·1 answer
  • Considering the dangers associated with spreading a disease why are people who were affected by communicable diseases told not t
    9·2 answers
  • How were citizens’ rights determined under the absolute monarchies in Spain and France? by the ruling monarch by the elected leg
    6·1 answer
  • Describe how ozone over antarctica changed during the period from 1975 to 1985
    15·1 answer
  • As the costs for the war in Iraq increased,
    5·2 answers
  • Which of the following is NOT part of the president’s responsibilities as party leader? A. raise money for the party / B. repres
    15·2 answers
  • 3. Under the Articles of Confederation, how was the federal government structured?
    14·1 answer
  • Which of the following were terms of the Treaty of Paris?
    9·1 answer
  • What did early humans need least in warm environments?
    10·2 answers
  • 1. Why did Britain invade Afghanistan in 1839?
    8·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!