Question 13

Only Justice Murphy's dissent contended that U.S. internment camps were a clear-cut example of racial prejudice.

Justice Murphy's dissent explicitly states that the legalization of racism has no justifiable part in American democracy and condemns the internment camps as a form of racial discrimination. He argues vehemently against the actions taken by the U.S. government, highlighting the moral and constitutional implications of such racial prejudice.

A) Only Justice Murphy's dissent acknowledged the dangers to the United States of having citizens from foreign lands.

This option is incorrect because the Court's ruling also acknowledged the perceived dangers associated with citizens of Japanese descent during wartime, framing the internment as a necessary security measure. Justice Murphy's dissent, while rejecting the internment, does not focus on acknowledging these dangers.

B) Only the Court's ruling acknowledged that the actions of fearful U.S. authorities can endanger the civil rights of citizens.

This statement is misleading because the Court's ruling, while acknowledging the actions taken were due to fear of national security, does not explicitly recognize that such actions endangered civil rights. Justice Murphy's dissent, on the other hand, highlights the infringement of civil rights due to racial discrimination.

C) Only the Court's ruling contended that Korematsu was ordered held in an internment camp because he was disloyal to the United States during time of war.

While the Court's ruling did discuss disloyalty as a factor in the internment decision, it does not singularly contend that disloyalty was the only reason for Korematsu's internment. Murphy's dissent does not focus on disloyalty but rather on the broader implications of racial prejudice.

D) Only Justice Murphy's dissent contended that U.S. internment camps were a clear-cut example of racial prejudice.

This option is correct as Justice Murphy's dissent specifically identifies the internment camps as a manifestation of racial prejudice, arguing that such discrimination is antithetical to democratic values. The Supreme Court's ruling did not frame the internment in this way, focusing instead on military necessity.

Conclusion

Justice Murphy's dissent stands out for its strong condemnation of racial prejudice, directly criticizing the internment camps as discriminatory. In contrast, the Supreme Court's ruling justified the internment based on wartime fears without addressing the underlying racial implications. This analysis highlights the fundamental conflict between legal justification and ethical considerations regarding civil rights during times of crisis.