Plessy V. Ferguson

 In the Plessy V. Ferguson case, Louisiana has a law adopted in 1892 requiring all private railroad companies to have separate accommodations for black and white passengers. Homer Plessy, who is 1/8ths black, got a first-class ticket. Apparently doing this broke the law. He ended up suing under the 14th amendment.

PLESSY V. FERGUSON AND THE ROOTS OF SEGREGATION

There were two sides to this case. It was the state (Ferguson) against Homer Plessy.

According to Homer Plessy's side, it established the constitutionality of racial segregation. Plessy should not have been required to give up his right or access his train car.

The Constitution should be colorblind so they don’t have to view color as a reason for treating other people differently. 

Plessy had every right to not move because his rights were violated. The equal protection clause was violated and Plessy did nothing wrong.

On the state's side (Ferguson), since slavery ended the state has tried to include blacks into society without violence, fear, or hate. 

They have made separate accommodations and feel people should respect that given that they have been trying to make things more equal. The State claims to be trying to make life better for blacks. Plessy had clearly broken the law. He is 1/8th black however a majority 7/8ths black and the law is simply laid out.

For the railroad, there were equal but separate accommodations. He broke the law knowingly and he should be charged. 

Another bold statement that the state made was that segregation law does not violate the equal protection law. The state also believes races prefer to be segregated. If one race is deemed inferior, that is not in the name of the law. It's not the job of the law to force the races to mix. 

His rights do not extend, he has the right to do many other things. He chose to break the law and the law is impracticable.

Both sides had valid arguments but as an individual, I believe the State had a stronger argument.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

State V. Mann

Image
 The State V. Mann's case was about an individual named John Mann, who had hired Lydia, who was a slave of Elizabeth Jones. After he had chastised her, she ran off. Mann ended up shooting Lydia and wounded her, however, she was still alive after the attack.  The state of North Carolina ended up charging Mann with assault.  The trial judge charged the Jury, that if they believed the punishment inflicted by Mann was cruel and uncalled for, that in the law the Defendant was guilty, as he only had a special property in the slave. The jury convicted the Defendant, and Mann appealed the conviction.   My group and I looked at all aspects of this case. This included religion, ethics, emotions, history, law, and economics.  My viewpoints however were solely based on the religious aspect of this case.  Religion does not support slavery by any means. In fact, It has been opposed on religious grounds. Throughout most religions slavery was accepted as an institutio...
Read more

EOTO

Image
In the Reconstruction Era, the Freedmen's Bureau was beneficial for the time being.  It was a lso known as the Bureau of Refugees. It was a U.S. government agency from 1865 to 1872. The Bureau was placed under the authority of the War Department and the majority of its original employees were soldiers from the Civil War.  It was established on March 3rd, 1865 by Congress to help millions of former black slaves and poor whites in the South as a result of the Civil War.  With the Freedmen's Bureau came food, housing, medical aid, established schools, and offered legal assistance. The Freedmen's Bureau was organized into districts covering the 11 former rebel states, the border states of Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Each district was headed by an assistant commissioner.  While the Bureau was active, it was underfunded and understaffed. With only 900 agents at its peak, some were corrupt or incompetent and others were brave and hardworking ...
Read more