The Case of Plessy v. Ferguson

Marker where Homer Plessy was arrested in New Orleans

Background

Homer Plessy

On June 7th, 1892 on East Louisiana Railway, a fair skinned African American man named Homer Plessy was forcibly removed from a train despite paying for the seat. He was only 1/8th African American, and despite paying for a 1st class ticker on a whites only car, he was fined for breaking the law. In Louisiana, there was a state law that said railway cars had to be segregated. His lawyers sued under the 14th amendment equal protection clause. 

History/Tradition

Homer Plessy was both a citizen and a working man. The only crime he was said to have committed was sitting in a seat that he paid for. What stood out to me the most during the mock trial was how the defense argued that both Plessy's education and behavior were identical to other white passengers, which brings about the question: how could any railroad worker accurately determine who should/shouldn't be allowed on certain railway cars? This question raises the concerns of the unreasonable nature of the segregation laws existing at the time.

Arguments Presented

The defense made many convincing arguments. First, nearly every defender emphasized that separate can never truly be equal. The 13th amendment abolished slavery, and the 14th amendment was created to ensure that all citizens are equally protected under the law. Despite paying the same amount for a ticket as white passengers, Plessy was treated unequal due to his ancestry. One person even invoked the Book of Genesis, arguing that all people stand equal before God regardless of race or social class, and that legal precedent should align with that moral truth.

Another argument that caught my eye was the economic side of segregation. It was stated that segregation is "an expensive luxury that our states cannot afford." In order to maintain separation, everything had to be doubled, which was both impractical and wasteful for many cities and towns. I also learned that railroad companies were opposed to these segregation laws because they even recognized the inefficiency of everything having to be duplicated. 

Segregated Public Accommodations (May 1940) 

In my opinion, the strongest argument made was that being forcibly removed from a train solely based on one's race or background created a constant state of inferiority that the amendments were designed to destroy. Another defender stated that "The Constitution is color-blind." The 14th amendment created a new social order where all people of America should be equal before the law. 

The prosecution's arguments, even though harder to hear clearly during the presentation, centered on the Louisiana Separate Car Act, which called for "equal, but separate accommodations." They argued that the 14th amendment guaranteed both civil and political equality, but not social equality. According to them, as long as both accommodations were equal in quality, separate facilities didn't violate the Constitution. Their position viewed "separate but equal" as a compromise between racial groups.

Reflection

Looking back at the trial, the arguments made by the defendants were right: separation itself declares inequality. There's no possible way to separate people by race while also treating them as equals. The "separate but equal" doctrine attempted to justify the unjustifiable, and it took too long for our legal system to acknowledge this truth. This case serves as a reminder of how courts can fail to live up to the principles set by the constitution and how legal precedent can maintain injustice for many years. 

AI Disclosure --> portions of this assignment stem from an Claude AI summary of my own notes taken during the mock trial. I then took that summary and categorized and modified them into my own words.