Plessy vs. Ferguson

1
Plessy vs. Ferguson

• 1896

2
(No Transcript)
3
Background

• During the later part of Reconstruction, Southern
  State legislatures started enforcing more Jim
  Crow laws to legally make African Americans more
  like second class citizens
• When the Supreme Court ruled on the Civil Rights
  Cases of 1883 the Court stated that the 14th
  amendment did not guarantee that private
  segregation would happen under the Equal
  Protection Clause created by this amendment
• However, they had not stated anything about the
  segregation in public

4
Contd

• Louisiana had created a law in 1890 that required
  separate seating of the railcars based on race
• There was a fine of twenty-five dollars or a jail
  term of up to twenty days for violators

• Homer Plessy was a successful businessman who
  lived in Baton Rouge, Louisiana
• He was only one-eighth African American
• He was returning from New Orleans to Baton Rouge

5
Contd

• Acting as part of the Citizens Committee to try
  to end Jim Crow Laws, Plessy sat in the wrong
  part of the train intentionally to try to start a
  case
• He refused to move to a different compartment and
  got arrested and charged on June 7th 1892

• He petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court for a
  formal written order against the trial court
  judge Ferguson to get rid of the charges for
  violation of the State Law
• Plessy was convicted and fined but then chose to
  appeal his case to the Supreme Court

6
(No Transcript)
7
The Question

• The 14th amendment no state can make a law that
  deprives a citizen from privileges or immunities
  given to U.S. citizens
• The 13th amendment abolishes slavery stating
  neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
  except as a punishment of crime

• Did the Louisiana State law which required
  segregation violate the 13th or 14th amendments?

8
Decision

• The Supreme Court ruled against Plessy
• They said that the equal protection of the laws
  stated in the 14th amendment gave the state the
  privilege to have separate but equal facilities
  
• The court also said the law did not violate the
  13th amendments banning of slavery

9
Opinions of the Justices

• Concurring (agreement)

• Dissenting (against)

• Henry Brown claimed the 14th amendment tried to
  enforce the absolute equality of the two races
  before the law, but the nature of things it could
  not have been intended to abolish distinctions
  based upon color, or to enforce socialequality.
• For the 13th amendment he felt a law that was
  suggesting a division between races has nothing
  to do with slavery or forced service

• John M. Harlan was a former slave owner was
  against racial division
• He thought there is no dominating class
  established by law in this country.
• He said Our Constitution is color-blind and
  neither knows nor tolerates classes among
  citizens.

10
Precedent

• Set the precedent of separate but equal is okay
• It lead to a ton of Jim Crow laws, over the next
  half a century, being declared constitutional
• It wasnt until brown vs. Broad of Education
  that separate but equal was declared no longer
  constitutional

11
Publicity

• For Plessy

• For Louisiana State

• The Citizens Committee supported Plessy because
  they felt segregated facilities were a violation
  of the Equal Protection Clause
• Because he was an active citizen he should not
  have been denied rights should not have been
  made to give up his seat.
• The Louisiana Law violated the Equal Protection
  Clause and thus was not constitutional

• Each state has the right to make laws to protect
  the publics best interest
• The segregation of facilities was the publics
  desire in Louisiana
• The separate but equal facilities provided the
  requirement made by the 14th amendment while
  satisfying white citizens demands
• The Civil Rights Cases of 1883 made segregation
  in private matters not a concern of the
  government, so why should a state be prohibited
  from enacting laws that allowed such things?

12
Our Opinion

• We would have supported the courts decision that
  the Louisiana law was justified because the law
  was not in any way violating the 13th or 14th
  amendment and was supported by the precedent set
  by the Civil Rights Cases of 1883
• The 13th amendment dealing with slavery was not
  violated because no one was being forced to be
  owned by anyone or do any labors
• The 14th amendment was not violated because he
  was still allowed to take the same transportation
  from point A to point B

13
Works Cited

• www.pbs.org/.../antebellum/landmark_plessy.html
• http//www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/a
  r29.html
• Patrick, John J. Plessy v. Ferguson. Oxford
  University Press, 2001. eLibrary. Web. 18 Feb
  2011.
• PLESSY V. FERGUSON. The Readers Companion to
  American History. 01 Dec. 1991. eLibrary. Web. 18
  Feb 2011.
• http//www.bgsu.edu/departments/acs/1890s/plessy/p
  lessy.html
• Bing.com