Thomas nast, a northern republican, was a long-time supporter of congressional reconstruction and equal rights for african americans. what does his cartoon, "colored rule in a state" suggest about how nast and other northern republicans viewed reconstruction in 1874?

Nast and other northern Republicans viewed a troubled and complicated government once black people didn't know how to argue without a physical or verbal attack. This is what can be seen, and understood through the analysis of his cartoon.

Explanation:

Thomas Nast was a supporter of equal rights for African Americans, but even with this political engagement, he was a Northern man, and his political, social and ideological points of view were strongly based on his surroundings. North was prospering, and different from the South, the northern states didn't suffer from the Civil War. With the abolition in 1865, African Americans now could be engaged in society, but no matter if on the North or in the South, the feeling of fear and distrust related to the African American people was strong. In this cartoon, Nast expresses these feelings. The fear that African Americans were not ready to guide a State, after years of slavery.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is