Separate but equal



    Posts : 358
    Join date : 2010-11-09

    Separate but equal

    Post by msistarted0 on Sat Jan 01, 2011 7:49 am

    Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States Constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities were to remain equal. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890.[1]

    * 1 Origins
    * 2 Rejection
    * 3 References
    * 4 Further reading
    * 5 External links

    [edit] Origins

    The American Civil War (1861–1865) policy yielded the cessation of legal slavery in the U.S., however not the intent of a different class of citizen. Before the end of the war, the Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act (Morrill Act of 1862) was passed to provide for federal funding of higher education by each state with the details left to the state legislatures. Following the war, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteed equal protection under the law to all citizens, and Congress established the Freedmen's Bureau to assist the integration of former slaves into Southern society. After the end of Reconstruction in 1877, states enacted various laws to undermine the equal treatment of African Americans, although the 14th Amendment as well as federal Civil Rights laws enacted during reconstruction were meant to guarantee it. However Southern states contended that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate.

    After the end of Reconstruction, the federal government adopted a general policy of leaving racial segregation up to the individual states. One example of this policy was the second Morrill Act (Morrill Act of 1890) implicitly accepted the legal concept of separate but equal for the 17 states which had institutionalized segregation.

    Provided, That no money shall be paid out under this act to any State or Territory for the support and maintenance of a college where a distinction of race or color is made in the admission of students, but the establishment and maintenance of such colleges separately for white and colored students shall be held to be a compliance with the provisions of this act if the funds received in such State or Territory be equitably divided as hereinafter set forth.[2][3]

    Prior to the Second Morrill Act, 17 states excluded blacks from access to the land grant colleges without providing similar educational opportunities. In response to the Second Morrill Act, 17 states established separate land grant colleges for blacks which are now referred to as public historically black colleges (HBCUs). In fact, some states adopted laws prohibiting schools from educating blacks and whites together, even if a school was willing to do so. (The Constitutionality of such laws was upheld in Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908).) Under the 'separate but equal doctrine', blacks were entitled to receive the same public services and accommodations such as schools, bathrooms, and water fountains, but states were allowed to maintain different facilities for the two groups. The legitimacy of such laws under the 14th Amendment was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537. The Plessy doctrine was extended to the public schools in Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899).
    A restaurant in Lancaster, Ohio, in 1938.

    Although the Constitutional doctrine required equality, the facilities and social services offered to African-Americans were of lower quality than those offered to whites; for example, many African-American schools received less public funding per student than nearby white schools. In Texas, the state established a state-funded law school for whites without any law school for blacks.

    white wedding flowers
    Dentista Madrid

      Current date/time is Fri Nov 24, 2017 1:59 am