“... how white-americans saw themselves in a position of power, even if they were technically “equal” with others”( Source 1 ). This means that the whites did see themselves superior to the blacks. It also means that what people were saying “equal” it wasn't true. “The law, he argued, was “inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that states, and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the constitution of the united states”’( Source 1 ). This explains that they were not equal and the blacks liberties and rights were being taken away from them. It also shows that they were being unfair towards the blacks and that whites weren’t the only ones that matter. All in all they were able to see that they were being unfair to the people of color and that it was wrong to treat people like they're not even …show more content…
“Looking at it that way, the segregated train mandate did not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection requirement. The train cars were “separate, but equal,” and therefore it was constitutional”’(Source 1). This shows that it was okay to segregate it was separate but equal anyways. This also shows that it was constitutional and no where in the constitution did it say it was wrong if they were separate but equal. In conclusion, it was not wrong for them to separate the train cars as long as they were separate but