IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/17747_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

After Reconstruction

In: The U.S. Supreme Court and Racial Minorities

Author

Listed:
  • .

Abstract

From March 1875 the U.S. Congress stopped passing civil rights laws, and in 1894 rolled back most existing ones. Meanwhile, executive branch through 1885 and the Waite Court through February1888 continued to uphold rights of racial minorities. President vetoed early efforts at Chinese exclusion and prosecuted southern racial violence. Waite Court upheld Indian rights in Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883), Asian rights in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), and black jury rights and voting rights. Fuller Court years (March 1888–1910) were the post-Emancipation nadir for black Americans in all three branches (excepting Theodore Roosevelt Administration): blacks lost voting rights and jury rights throughout South. No branch stood up for Indian rights in 1885–1903 period, as Dawes Policy cost much of their land. Fuller Court often upheld rights of Chinese or Chinese Americans, and Indian rights in 1896, 1905 (twice), and 1908, but sometimes ruled against each. KEYWORDS: U.S. v. Harris (1883) Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) Major Crimes Act of 1885 Dawes Act of 1887 Fuller Court Chinese Exclusion Black disenfranchisement

Suggested Citation

  • ., 2017. "After Reconstruction," Chapters, in: The U.S. Supreme Court and Racial Minorities, chapter 4, pages 118-188, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • Handle: RePEc:elg:eechap:17747_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9781786438829.00011.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lavrič, Henrik & Rihar, Andraž & Fišer, Rastko, 2018. "Simulation of electrical energy production in Archimedes screw-based ultra-low head small hydropower plant considering environment protection conditions and technical limitations," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 87-98.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Law - Academic; Politics and Public Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:elg:eechap:17747_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Darrel McCalla (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.e-elgar.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.