“The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced . . . .”

Question

“The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced . . . .”

Explain how this decision legally interpreted the Constitution prior to the civil rights movement.(1 point)

Answer 1

The passage you've provided is from the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This decision interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause in a way that allowed for "separate but equal" facilities for different races. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's purpose was to establish legal equality between the races but not to eliminate distinctions based on race in social or other areas.

The Court's reasoning led to the establishment of a legal doctrine that permitted state-enforced racial segregation, provided the separate facilities for African Americans and whites were of equal quality. The justices argued that racial separation in itself did not signify the inferiority of any race. This interpretation of the Constitution upheld state laws that mandated racial segregation (known as Jim Crow laws) in public facilities and education.

The interpretation remained legally valid until it was overturned by the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The Brown decision recognized that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and ruled that state-mandated segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This case marked the beginning of a series of legal and social advancements that formed the Civil Rights Movement, which sought to eliminate racial segregation and discrimination in the United States.