Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Dissent Group Handout
Facts:
On June 7, 1892, 30-year-old Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the “White” car of the East Louisiana Railroad.He was a Creole of Color, a term used to refer to black persons in New Orleans who traced some of their ancestors to the French, Spanish, and Caribbean settlers of Louisiana before it became part of the United States. Plessy could easily pass for white but under Louisiana law, he was considered black despite his light complexion and therefore required to sit in the “Colored” car. When Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, legally segregating common carriers in 1892, a black civil rights organization decided to challenge the law in the courts.Plessy deliberately sat in the white section and identified himself as black. Plessy was arrested.His lawyer argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. District Court Judge John H. Ferguson dismissed the contention that the Act was unconstitutional. The state Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling; the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Questions before the U.S. Supreme Court:Is Louisiana’s law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Court Ruling: In a 7-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that equal but separate accommodations for whites and blacks imposed by Louisiana do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Brown conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law,
. . . but, in the in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other. . .
Significance: The Plessy decision set the precedent that “separate” facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were “equal.” The majority opinion did not contain the phrase “separate but equal” but this doctrine gave constitutional sanction to laws designed to achieve racial segregation which was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theatres, restrooms, and public schools.
Excerpts fromJustice Harlan’s Dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson
In respect of civil rights common to all citizens, the Constitution of the United States does not, I think, permit any public authority to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of such rights. . . Indeed, such legislation as that here in question is inconsistent not only with that equality of rights which pertains to citizenship, National and State, but with the personal liberty enjoyed by everyone within the United States.
The Thirteenth Amendment does not permit the withholding or the deprivation of any right necessarily inhering in freedom. It not only struck down the institution of slavery as previously existing in the United States, but it prevents the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude. It decreed universal civil freedom in this country. . . But that amendment having been found inadequate to the protection of the rights of those who had been in slavery, it was followed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship and to the security of personal liberty. . .
These two amendments, if enforced according to their true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship. . .
These notable additions to the fundamental law were welcomed by the friends of liberty throughout the world. They removed the race line from our governmental systems. They had, as this court has said, a common purpose, namely to secureto a race recently emancipated, a race that throughmany generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy.They declared, in legal effect, this court has further said,that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color. . .
The destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens. . .
Breaking Down the Case
After your group reads the case summary, answer the following questions:
- What is the name of the case and when was it decided?
- What are the underlying facts of the case?
- What is are the questions before the Court?
- How did the Court rule?
Answer the following questions based on Justice John Marshall Harlan’s dissent and use text to support your answer, be prepared to present your thoughts with the class.
Discussion Questions:
- According to Justice Harlan, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were created for what purposes?
- What is Justice Harlan’s view on laws based upon racial distinctions?
- According to Justice Harlan, what would be the consequences of the ruling? Why would it be dangerous to sanction segregation under law?
1