Transcript
Q1 Under the outline of emancipator, which suggests freeing a slave. President of the United States did believe that slavey was wrong and went against the Declaration of Independence. Still, there is no reason to misdoubt that Lincoln failed to like slavery. Slavery, in Lincoln’s mind, was profitable. In 1860, slavery was growing more entrenched within the South. Unpaid labor made for giant profits, and also the southern elite was growing ever richer. The wisest path to ending slavery, argued Lincoln, was to permit it into the states where it absolutely was also legal and admit no further slave states to the Union. Eleven of the slave holding states organized themselves and war broke out between North and South. Lincoln demanded any clear indigenous authority to undo state laws about slavery. That left Lincoln only 1 other option, and it absolutely was the hazardous of all — a proclamation of liberation, freeing the slaves, He signed the Emancipation Proclamation into law on January 1, 1863. As for the term flip-flopper, I feel all politicians are like that. All of them say/promise things that they require people/ choosers to listen to, to verify their vote. Politicians, past and present, both arguably say one thing and do the opposite and take a look at to justify their changing their minds or conduct because it's within the nations stylish interest. All politicians currently are to me" snake oil salesperson" Q2 In Plessy vs Ferguson, it absolutely was a court case regarding that as long because the train cars were separate but equal, that it had been constitutional. Plessy bought a first-class ticket and sat within the "Whites Only" car rather than the "Blacks only car" under the Separate Car Act of Louisiana. Plessy was arrested when he refused to maneuver to the "Blacks only" compartment. He was found guilty of violating this act. He tried his case under the Equal Protection clause, and it failed/denied, claiming that because the cars were equal, there was unconstitutional basis. Upon this decision, he moved to the Supreme court within the legendary Plessy vs. Ferguson, and there he lost again, on the premise separate but equal. The case ruling was a 7-1 decision, segregation was upheld as constitutional, and it set the stage for many years of state legislation that targeted laws circumventing the rights of African Americans. While some states were already attempting to form discriminatory laws like this within the 1890s, Plessy v. Ferguson opened the trail for the so-called ''Jim Crow'' laws to radically limit the freedoms of African Americans within the American South. In his dissent, "Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind which the us had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights. He wrote in his dissent opinion " I'm of the opinion that the Separate Car Act is inconsistent with the private liberties of citizens, white and black, therein State, and hostile to both the spirit and also the meaning of the Constitution of the United States." At the time of this ruling, I believe that most Americans, not all, had a more liberal view on the topic, because racial tensions were high at the time, (somewhat today too, I might add). However, since then America has moved to a more conservative approach to things like this. Race is a HUGE topic nowadays, and we have come a long way since Plessy vs. Ferguson, but we still have a way to go. ? Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). (2022, February 8). National Archives. https://www.archives.gov/milestone- documents/plessy-v-ferguson
