Plessy V. Carter Court Case Study

In 1953, the first black student enrolled, as an undergraduate, at Louisiana State University. And in sixty-four years, several different races have had the opportunity to enroll and earn degrees from Louisiana State University, including myself. However, this was not always the case. There was a point in time where blacks and whites could not attend the same school, or even use the same facilities. The court decision that made separate facilities legal, was Plessy v Ferguson. It allowed for separate areas for blacks and whites, which forced blacks to create their facilities, like Historically Black Colleges and University. Later, in 1954, Plessy v Ferguson would be overturned, which allows all races to coexist in the same facilities today. I plan to explain
the historical context, legal rationale and personal views that help uphold this flawed case.
Plessy v Ferguson was decided thirty-one years after slavery was abolished. Even though slavery was abolished, separate facilities started appearing, especially in the South during the Reconstruction Era. Separate facilities were any public spaces (i.e. bathrooms, restaurants, buses, etc.) had to have distinguished areas for black and white people. Distinguished areas on a train, were one of the first separated areas to appear in the South. The ruling, of Plessy v. Ferguson, being constitutional opened the door for other public venues to engage in separating black from whites. The Separate Car Act, or Withdraw Car Act, was passed in 1890, in Louisiana. This act stated that all railroad companies must have separate seating for whites and black. As long as the luxuries of the different seating, for white and black people, remained equal, no amendment could be violated. However, everyone knew that the law was to keep black passengers out of white designated trains, not to keep white passengers out of black designated trains. The consequences of sitting in the wrong section was a $25 dollar fine, equivalent to about $650 today, or 20 days in jail. Not everyone was fond of the Separate Car Act, like Henry Demas. Demas stated that the act represented lower class white citizens with no “social or moral standing in the community”. In 1891, Daniel Desdunes, son of a civil rights activist, challenged the law, by sitting in a whites only section on a trip from Louisiana to Tennessee. The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the law did not apply to interstate travelers. In 1892, Homer Plessy, attempted to challenge the law. Plessy was one-eighth black, and was considered, altogether, a black man. Plessy purchased a ticket from New Orleans to Covington, and sat in the “whites only” section of the train. He was arrested and put in jail; his case did go to trial. In court, Plessy argued that his thirteenth and fourteenth amendments were being violated. Plessy lost twice in lower courts, he then took his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts and decided that racial segregation was legal.

Legally, separating the races was not in violation of the law. The 13th amendment forbids involuntary servitude, slavery. The 14th amendment forbids laws that deprive citizens of their “privileges or immunities”. Laws … requiring their separation … do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race.” The rationale was that it is impossible for the government to overcome social injustice. With a 7-1 vote, Justice Harlan was the only justice to dissent. Even though, Plessy was one-eighth African American, it was not discernable and most people, at the time, assumed he was a white man. Justice Harlan believed that because Plessy’s skin appeared white, he should be afforded the same luxuries of a white man. I do not believe this verdict violated the 13th amendment because no one is enslaved by have separate public facilities. I do believe that the 14th amendment was violated, only because of the country’s mindset. If there was a guarantee that all facilities could be equal, then no amendment would be violated. But because of this country’s mindset, at least in the time period, that whites are better, facilities where never going to equal. As previously stated, the initial decision to segregate train cars, did so for the benefits of whites. White facilities were always superior to black facilities. The justices, and everyone in this time period, knew this and because of this, common knowledge, the amendment was violated. I would imagine that the personal views of the judges were reflected in the outcome of this case. During this time, just thirty years after slavery, white people still looked down upon African Americans. The overall tone of America, after blacks had been freed, was to continue to oppress them. After slavery, black literacy rates and property ownership increased. Black people expanded their education and schools, they also started to gain political power. Many believe the uprising of black people posed as a threat to their white counterparts The ruling of Plessy v Ferguson, encouraged more laws to be passed that segregated white and black public facilities. Starting around the 1890s, many southern states passed laws to prevent blacks from voting. Using methods like the property test and literacy test to hinder blacks from voting. This is the same time period where lynching, of black people, was publicly accepted and often encouraged.
The Chief Justice, on this case, was Melville Fuller and there were eight associate justices.
The personal lives and views of each of the justices played a key role in the verdict of this case. It has been noted that Justice Fuller strived to segregate Chicago schools, after he graduated law school. It has, also, been noted that Fuller shared the same views of Senator Stephen Douglas. Stephen Douglas was a firm believer in white privilege and slavery. Associate Justice Stephen Field dissented in the Strauder v West Virginia case, in 1880. Strauder v West Virginia decided that rejecting people from a jury, solely based on races, was a violation of the 14th amendment. Justice John Marshall Harlan, the only dissenter, came from a slave-owning family. Harlan, over time, changed his views on racial matters. Even though court decisions should be clearly decided based on the Constitution, that is not always the case, obviously. Even though the constitution is sometimes left up to interpretation, in this case, it’s clear that personal views were the only guide. A lot of the justices have a record of allowing their personal views to interfere with their decision, instead of basing their decision on the
Constitution.
Highlighting the, ever changing, law was the goal of this paper. At this time, the ruling reflected the society. This is the same time period were racial discrimination and killing black people was encouraged. As time went on, more laws were passed to prevent these types of the violation from happening. Today, segregation is considered illegal, so the outcome of this case would be unconstitutional. The law continuously changes, what may be right today, may be wrong tomorrow. I have recently learned that humanity does not steadily improve, similar to technology. Sometimes, we are improving and sometimes we decline, the law changes as we do.