Plessy v. Ferguson Reaction

    Today in Court we heard the controversial case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a black man, barely distinguishable from a white man, challenged a Louisiana statute on 14th Amendment "equal protection" grounds calling for segregated train cars after he was forcibly removed for sitting in the whites-only car. Both sides had some particularly strong arguments.

    Plessy's team brought very strong arguments. They recentered the case, making clear that the question before the court wasn't whether or not history is moving away from segregation but whether they would decide to move with it. Emphasizing that history was clearly moving towards equality, citing the 13th amendment as precedent. They made sure to appeal to the Court's moral compass, asking why we have any right to judge another for something they could not even choose, such as their skin color; calling into question the absurdity and hypocrisy of punishing a man who was only 1/8 African American when they would not do the same for a man who was only 1/8 Caucasian! Arguably their strongest point, segregation is a huge financial burden on the country's economy! Tax payers have to pay double the amount for amenities/infrastructure and eliminating the need to pay for two separate systems would allow different federal expenditure, strengthening the country economically. De jure segregation also forces African Americans to be cut off from society and stunts their and the country's cultural growth, citing New York as a example of how integration benefits and diversifies the country's culture through dialogue and art. Wrapping up their argument with a strong argument from law, they claimed that the separate car law was based solely on race and the Constitution is color blind. The country was founded on the concept of personal liberty! The government should not be able to infringe on a man's right as personal sitting where he desires.

    Ferguson's team also came with some pretty compelling arguments. At the outset, they also recentered the case to being about upholding the state's authority to protect public order and reflect the public's will. They beseeched the Court to think critically about what type of precedent could stem from this decision, one they believed to be a dangerous precedent of striking down state actions all across the country and endangering the very idea of federalism the government was founded on. They offered a strong economic counterargument to Plessy's team using the success of the Black community in Galveston, Texas, often referred to as "the Wallstreet of the South," as an example of Black economic success separate from the White economy. Furthermore, integration could actually cause racial tensions that make customers uncomfortable and damage the economy even more than funding two separate school systems, so integration is too costly for what it's worth. They made clear that segregation has been at the bedrock of our country's society for so long that turning it on its head so abruptly would cause more harm than good. Finally, their argument from law somewhat followed the same line of logic as their opponents... the Constitution is colorblind. Therefore, as long as the facilities and services provided to both communities were equal, there is no problem with them being separate. They concluded their argument clarifying that the 14th amendment called for an end to discrimination, not integration. Called for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

    Though all that should really matter in the courtroom is the law, I found both sides' economic arguments the most interesting. I never had thought about how taxing sustaining segregation must have been for the country and I hadn't heard a lot about huge pockets of Black wealth being generated in the country during such trying times for African Americans. The judge brought the decision down to only the 14th Amendment. A state reg that forces the separation of African Americans and Whites in state cars does not seem inherently bad on paper, "but the state is not being as neutral as it would like us to believe. Any child could see the disparity between the two cars." He decided to reject Louisiana's claim that they were making them equal and ruled in Plessy's favor. I agree with his decision for the same reasons and I'm glad he did not follow the actual historical ruling that established the horrid "Separate but Equal" doctrine for almost 60 years.