|
Background
Summary and Questions • •
•
In 1890,
Louisiana passed a statute called the "Separate Car Act",
which stated "that all railway companies carrying passengers
in their coaches in this state, shall provide equal but
separate accommodations for the white, and colored races,
by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger
train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition
so as to secure separate accommodations. . . . " The penalty
for sitting in the wrong compartment was a fine of $25 or
20 days in jail.
The
Plessy case was carefully orchestrated by both the Citizens'
Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate
Car Act, a group of blacks who raised $3000 to challenge
the Act, and the East Louisiana Railroad Company, which
sought to terminate the Act largely for monetary reasons.
They chose a 30-year-old shoemaker named Homer Plessy,
a citizen of the United States who was one-eighth black
and a resident of the state of Louisiana. On June 7,
1892, Plessy purchased a first-class passage from New
Orleans to Covington, Louisiana and sat in the railroad
car designated for whites only. The railroad officials,
following through on the arrangement, arrested Plessy
and charged him with violating the Separate Car Act.
Well known advocate for black rights Albion Tourgee,
a white lawyer, agreed to argue the case without compensation.
In the
criminal district court for the parish of Orleans, Plessy
argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
|
Thirteenth
Amendment
Section
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
|
Fourteenth
Amendment
Section
1. 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.
|
John
Howard Ferguson was the judge presiding over Plessy's
criminal case in the district court. He had previously
declared the Separate Car Act "unconstitutional on trains
that traveled through several states." However, in Plessy's
case he decided that the state could choose to regulate
railroad companies that operated solely within the state
of Louisiana. Therefore, Ferguson found Plessy guilty
and declared the Separate Car Act constitutional.
Plessy
appealed the case to the Louisiana State Supreme Court,
which affirmed the decision that the Louisiana law as
constitutional. Plessy petitioned for a writ of
error from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judge John Howard Ferguson was named in the case brought
before the United States Supreme Court (Plessy
v. Ferguson) because he had been named in the
petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court and not because
he was a party to the initial lawsuit.
Questions
to Consider:
- What
law did Homer Plessy violate? How did Plessy violate this
law?
-
What rights do the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the Constitution provide?
-
If you were Plessy's lawyer, how would you justify your
claim that the "Separate Car Act" violates the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth amendments?
-
In State of Louisiana v. Plessy, Judge Ferguson
decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad
companies that operated within the state even though he
had previously declared the "Separate Car Act" unconstitutional
on trains that traveled through several states. If an
act is declared unconstitutional in one case, shouldn't
it be held unconstitutional in all cases? How do you think
Judge Ferguson could legally justify making this distinction?
-
Is it possible for two races to remain separated while striving for equality? Are separation and equality compatible? Why or why not?
-
Can you think of an example or situation where separtion does not mean inequality?
|
