promotion image of download ymail app
Anonymous asked in Education & ReferenceHomework Help · 1 decade ago

Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes, Plessy v. Ferguson ???

How did the Jim Crow Laws, Black Codes, and Plessy v. Ferguson get around the 13th amendment?


6 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well... Generally speaking, the 13th Amendment outlawed SLAVERY, involuntary SERVITUDE. It did NOT, however, outlaw DISCRIMINATION by RACE.

    Please refer to the wikipedia articles for details of all these items.

    Technically, these laws did not "get AROUND" the 13th Amendment, they had NOTHING TO DO with the 13th Amendment.

    The Jim Crow laws mandated "separate but equal" status for black Americans. In reality, this led to treatment and accommodations that were almost always inferior to those provided to white Americans. This separation had nothing to do with enslaving the blacks into servitude.

    The Black Codes were laws passed on the state and local level in the United States to restrict the civil rights and civil liberties of Black People, particularly former slaves in former Confederate states. Although blacks' civil rights and liberties were RESTRICTED, they had nothing to with enslaving them.

    Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". Again, SLAVERY had nothing to do with it.

    I hope this helps!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    The 13th Ammendment Abolished Slavery, the exact wording is as follows:

    1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    No laws or legal action that I am aware ever circumscribed the 13th ammendment. Once slavery was abolished, that was the end of it.

    The 14th ammendment, however, guaranteed equal protection and rights under the law to all citizens. Several post civil war laws were enacted which "got around" this guarantee by arguing that services and protections could be "Separate, but equal." This was the racial segregation, primarily in the south, for almost 100 years following the civil war.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Greetings follow American's you all have told the truth, but there seems to be a question that has not been decussed. The reason those laws did not hold up is because the so-called Slave where still Slaves, they where called freed slaves, they had No Nationality, and Congress hurried up and created the 14th amendment so they could that Jurisdiction of these people before they them selves could create a nationality for them selves. Ask your selves this question, what is the Nationality and Identity of the *****, Colored, Blacks, Afro-American or African-American, do you see how with these government created identities we are still slaves to the GOVERNMENT OF THE WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. We live all across this land and we still are slaves to the congress of the U.S. GOVERNMENT, this is why law enforcement can kill us and not one of them will ever be charged with a crime of murder, they are the AGENTS of the U.S. GOVERNMENT and we are there so-called property, slaves can't sue their Masters. it right their in the 14th amendment, this is the reason No Reperation can be paid then these people. they don't have their on Nationality. Example, if you are from France you are French, if you are English you are from England, Chines you from China, see my point. The very word Black in Oxfords Law Dictionary, means Dead in the Law, if we don't have a nationality we are not reconized by the Family of Nations, this is the reason we get treated as we do. Racism has nothing to do with it, if we don't know who we are as a people then we leave our selves open to all sort of mistreatment.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    by way of fact to the quantity that the thirteenth modification even meant that Black individuals ought to have fun with equivalent rights with White individuals -- and it did not -- such purpose replaced into skipped over in all yet its narrowest interpretation via the courts and not supported via White society as an entire.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • DrIG
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    The thirteenth Amendment states:

    Section 1:

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Section 2:

    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Encouraged by President Johnson's evident intention to return to them the management of their own affairs, Southern legislators, elected by white voters, passed what came to be called Black Codes. Their very evident purpose was to reduce free blacks to a new kind of legal servitude distinguished by all the disadvantages of slavery and none of its advantages.

    "No ***** or freedman shall be permitted to rent or keep a house within the limits of the town under any circumstances. . . . No ***** or freedman shall reside within the limits of the town . . . who is not in the regular service of some white person or former owner. . . . No public meetings or congregations of negroes or freedmen shall be allowed within the limits of the town. . . . No ***** or freedman shall be permitted to preach, exhort, or otherwise declaim to congregations of colored people without a special permission from the mayor or president of the board of police.. .. No freedman ... shall be allowed to carry firearms, or any kind of weapons.... No freedman shall sell, barter, or exchange any article of merchandise within the limits of Opelousas without permission in writing from his employer In the parish of St. Landry it was required "that every ***** [is] to be in the service of some white person, or former owner. ...

    In Alabama the Black Codes stipulated that it was the duty of all "Civil officers" of a county to report "the names of all minors whose parents have not the means, or who refuse to support said minors." They might be treated in the same way, arrested, fined, and then sentenced to work off their fines. In bidding for the services of "said minor . . . the former owner . . . shall have preference." In Mobile unemployed blacks, those who had no "fixed residence or [could not] give a good account of themselves," were required by another section of the code "to give security for their good behavior for a reasonable time and to indemnify the city against any charge for their support In the event they could not meet this requirement, they were, again, "to be confined to labor for a limited time, not exceeding six calendar months . . . for the benefit of said city." Also in Alabama, municipalities were authorized to "restrain and prohibit the nightly and other meetings or disorderly assemblies of all persons and to punish for such offences by fixing penalties not exceeding fifty dollars for any one offence Again if the accused were not able to pay the fine, he or she might be sentenced to labor for a period of time not exceeding six months.

    It was not long after the Court's decision striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 that southern states began enacting sweeping segregation legislation. In 1890, Louisiana required by law that blacks ride in separate railroad cars. In protest of the law, blacks in the state tested the statute's constitutionality by having a light-skinned African American, Homére Plessy, board a train, whereupon he was quickly arrested for sitting in a car reserved for whites. A local judge ruled against Plessy and in 1896 the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court asserted that Plessy's rights were not denied him because the separate accommodations provided to blacks were equal to those provided whites. It also ruled that "separate but equal" accommodations did not stamp the "colored race with a badge of inferiority." Again, Justice Harlan protested in a minority opinion: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    hah i just learned this in school and i don't even know the answer! lol...

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.