How did the jim crow laws violate the 14th amendment?
Plessy v. Ferguson said they didn't, but Brown v. Board of Education said they did. Let's say they did (that's what nearly everyone thinks now). The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law" to everyone, regardless of race. So any law that denies rights to some people that are allowed to others, based on people's races, is inherently unconstitutional.
How did Jim Crow laws circumvent the good intentions of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
The answer is states rights. State rights was often the most talked about subject during the era of Reconstruction Era. By the 1870s, racial violence perpetrated by white Southerners in the South continued to undermine the Reconstruction peace process and many Northerners were tired and wanted to deal with other issues instead of having the federal government being a babysitter for the freed slaves in the South. They decided that the civil rights issue should be left up to individual states instead of having the federal government decided what's best for all. So after the election of 1876, a deal was struck that in exchange for Rutherford B Hayes for acquiring presidency, he would agree to remove federal troops stationed in the South. Thus, without the watchful eye of the federal government, the South was free to do whatever they feel like they pleased and took away the rights of black-Americans and imposed a rule that specifically targeted them and not the whites themselves.
How did Jim Crow laws circumvent the good intentions of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments?
The answer is states rights. State rights was often the most talked about subject during the era of Reconstruction Era. By the 1870s, racial violence perpetrated by white Southerners in the South continued to undermine the Reconstruction peace process and many Northerners were tired and wanted to deal with other issues instead of having the federal government being a babysitter for the freed slaves in the South. They decided that the civil rights issue should be left up to individual states instead of having the federal government decided what's best for all. So after the election of 1876, a deal was struck that in exchange for Rutherford B Hayes for acquiring presidency, he would agree to remove federal troops stationed in the South. Thus, without the watchful eye of the federal government, the South was free to do whatever they feel like they pleased and took away the rights of black-Americans and imposed a rule that specifically targeted them and not the whites themselves.
How did the jim crow laws violate the 14th amendment?
Plessy v. Ferguson said they didn't, but Brown v. Board of Education said they did. Let's say they did (that's what nearly everyone thinks now). The 14th amendment guarantees "equal protection under the law" to everyone, regardless of race. So any law that denies rights to some people that are allowed to others, based on people's races, is inherently unconstitutional.
How do Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws render the 13th, 14, and 15th amendments ineffective esp. in the south?
they provided that no state can effect a law that usurps federal law.... there by rendering those laws illegal under the constitution....and federal law,,,
Why were the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments important?
13th freed the slaves14th made children born here to legally resident aliens (at the time, the former slaves) citizens based on their birth on American soil, it also made the primary power and loyalty be the federal government, and came to be the vehicle the supreme court used to start beating the states over the head with the bill of rights in the 1950s and 1960s15th made it clear to the south that they could not prohibit the vote of citizens, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
What is the significance of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments of the US Constitution?
I wonder how deeply the questioner is thinking about this, because this is one of the deepest questions in U.S. legal history. On their face these three amendments are usually referred to as a product of the Civil War and Reconstruction, but they certainly go further, particularly the 14th. Although the Constitution did not expressly create social classes, prior to the 13th Amendment, certain classes of people had rights that other classes did not. States could grant or remove rights, and they did depending on race, gender, property, or ancestry. Afterwards, not so much.The first "discovery" about the 14th Amendment came in the 1880s with the creation of corporate personhood. Nothing in the amendment referred to corporations, but the use of the word "person" instead of "people" was taken to confer basic rights on corporations.Then, beginning in the 1930s with Justice Hugo Black, a growing school of thought accepted that the 14th Amendment in fact incorporated all federal rights to all citizens, regardless of state laws to the contrary.
Why did the U.S. Government allow Jim Crow laws to flourish?
The briefest and most simplistic reason, in my opinion, is that the Jim Crow laws flourished because Lincoln was shot and so he was vital to the process of healing the cultural rift slavery had caused within the U.S.. The government that followed were not capable of entirely beating back the pro-slavery forces. So, even though slavery was technically abolished, Southern leadership was able to weaken or circumvent new laws concerning the liberty of newly freed slaves. Slavery was and is economic in structure, so lawmakers were able to introduce a concept called sharecropping, which is to say that owners allowed black workers to work the owner’s land in return for a place to stay and a share of whatever crop the growers grew. Since the government had provided no long term reeducation or jobs programs after slavery ended, the ex-slaves had few other choices open to them for employment (Look up the Pullman Company for a fascinating exception). Thus economically ex-slaves were forced to do the same labor they had been doing already. Sure, it was a step up, but it wasn’t full emancipation.Furthermore, cultural attitudes were such that blacks were very much second class citizens. So, segregating black people from white people had been practiced before the Civil war and continued on afterwards. It was easy to neglect or ignore a people’s presence if they could not be seen.But to finish, and to answer the question “Why did the U.S. government allow Jim Crow laws to flourish?” was because the majority of the U.S. did not see black people as equals. It is as simple as that. Cultural attitudes of inferiority plus the Southern need for cheap labor created the conditions needed for Jim Crow laws to arise. The South was devastated after the war, and sharecropping was an answer they used to replace their lost labor.So the the South was able to re-establish their economic base and build back up after the war though gains both in congress and in work around laws based back home. No one saw African Americans as equals (not even in the North) so, “separate but equal” became a rational used in laws to show that blacks had equal rights, but did not have to mingle with whites. It was all very logical to the prevailing white culture at the time.This is my very poor off the cuff answer. But a good source is “America: A Narrative History 10E, by Norton Books ISBN: 978–0–393–62091–7”
What is meant historically by a “Jim Crow” law? What is one (or more) example of such a law before 1975?
“Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.” Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia.In the north, it was mostly informal after the Civil War. Before then, there had been a lot of legalised discrimination in the North, though slavery was mostly illegal. See Both Sides Were Racist in the US Civil War.The US North mostly had informal segregation, enforced by violence and threat rather than law.