Part II: Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Part II: Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

The Supreme Court Makes Segregation Official

Open Ended

What do you think the word segregation means?

Examples of Segregation

What examples have you heard about? Share with your shoulder partner.

Words to know

• legitimized: made legal

• doctrine: a principle or policy or rule

• civil: relating to ordinary citizens

• political: relating to the government

• social norms: behavior or attitudes of the majority

How would you describe this man, Homer Plessy? What inferences can you draw from the photo? Share with your shoulder partner.

Multiple Choice

In 1896, a ruling by the United States Supreme Court legitimized state segregation laws in a case known as Plessy v Ferguson. In this case, Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black and seven-eights white, argued that his constitutional rights were violated when he was forced to ride in a rail car designated for black people, even though he bought a first-class ticket in a car reserved for whites.

What did Homer Plessy argue was violated?

• First class

• His ticket

• His constitutional rights

• His race

Open Ended

Mr. Plessy and his attorneys argued that his 14th Amendment rights were violated, because he was denied "equal protection of the law" in Louisiana. In this case, "Ferguson" refers to Judge John H. Ferguson, the New Orleans judge who ruled against Plessy in the original criminal case.

Why did Plessy think he was denied equal protection of the law?

Multiple Choice

Through the appeals process, Plessy v Ferguson rose through the court system all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, in 1896, decided against Mr. Plessy and upheld state segregation laws.

Did the Supreme Court agree with Mr. Plessy or disagree with him and his argument that his rights were being violated?

• Agreed

• Disagreed

Multiple Select

Specifically, the Supreme Court decision affirmed two important points: As long as public facilities were equal, they could be segregated on race. This became known as the "separate but equal" doctrine. The 14th Amendment affirmed equal protection under law, which specifically extended to civil and political rights. However, the 14th Amendment did not extend to social norms or practices.

What did the 14th Amendment extend to, according to the Supreme Court?

• civil rights

• political rights

• social norms

• social practices

Open Ended

The 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to Amendment 14, who is a citizen of the United States as a whole, and of their individual states?

Open Ended

The 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What are states not allowed to do to citizens of the United States?

Open Ended

The 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What do you think is meant by the very last phrase that starts with "nor deny"?

Open Ended

Do you think laws that allowed segregation deprived people of "life, liberty, or property"? Explain your thinking.

Return to this photo

• Were your first inferences correct?

• What other impressions did you have?

Read this document study and answer the questions as they come.

The majority decision of the Supreme Court in Plessy v Ferguson was written by Justice Henry Billings Brown.

Decision part 1

The object of the [14th] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, 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.

Decision part 2

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, . . . The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, . . . If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly [163 U.S. 537, 552] or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

Open Ended

Decision part 3

We think the enforced separation of the races, as applied to the internal commerce of the state, neither abridges the privileges or immunities of the colored man, deprives him of his property without due process of law, nor denies him the equal protection of the laws, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.

In what way did the majority of Supreme Court justices in the case of Plessy v Ferguson interpret the 14th Amendment to conclude that Homer Plessy's rights were not violated?

Open Ended

The Plessy case established what became known as the "separate but equal" doctrine. What do you think this means?

Open Ended

What words does Justice Brown use to argue "separate but equal" in the case of Plessy v Ferguson?

The only justice to dissent, John Marshall Harlan, wrote this, part 1:

I am of opinion that the state of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state, and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several states of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous.

Dissent, part 2

Slavery, as an institution tolerated by law, would, it is true, have disappeared from our country; but there would remain a power in the states, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the full enjoyment of the blessings of freedom, to regulate civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race, and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, . . . 

Dissent, part 3

Such a system is inconsistent with the guaranty given by the constitution to each state of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Open Ended

In what way did Justice Harlan interpret the 14th Amendment differently from the other judges in this case?

Open Ended

What is Justice Harlan's warning about the effects of the ruling in this case? Do you think his prediction came true? Explain.