Plessy v. Ferguson

What I Learned About Plessy v. Ferguson

In my class this week, I learned about one of the most controversial Supreme Court cases in American history, Plessy v. Ferguson. The case centered on Homer Plessy, a fair-skinned man who was one-eighth African American, making him what was called an "octoroon" at the time.

Group Representing Plessy 

Plessy deliberately board a whites-only train car in Louisiana and was fined for violating state segregation laws. His lawyer challenged this under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, arguing that separate facilities for different races violated constitutional guarantees of equality. What struck me most was that nobody could even tell Plessy apart from white passengers based on his appearance, behavior, or education.

I found the arguments on Plessy's side incredibly compelling. His lawyers argued that separate could never truly be equal under the law and that segregation was discrimination, plain and simple. They pointed out that all citizens should have equal rights regardless of race. The economic arguments really opened my eyes—they showed how segregation limited the labor market and cost Louisiana talented doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, and athletes.

Group Representing Ferguson 

What I hadn't considered before was how segregation taught society that some people weren't deserving of basic rights and humanity. The lawyers even cited biblical teachings about loving your neighbor, arguing that these laws contradicted fundamental moral principles. They demonstrated that states with fewer segregation laws were actually thriving economically.

Louisiana's defense focused on preserving peace and respecting the will of the people. They argued that tradition mattered in constitutional interpretation and that separate but equal facilities could help bridge past injustices. Their position was that segregation prevented social friction and wasn't about inferiority but about prudence.

The state claimed it was exercising its sovereign right to protect citizens' welfare. They even compared racial segregation to separating facilities for men and women, suggesting both were reasonable accommodations. Railroad companies, they argued, wanted to cater to their clientele's preferences to avoid conflict and maintain revenue.

Understanding both sides of this case has given me deeper insight into how legal arguments shaped America's history of racial injustice.

~AI disclosure: After taking notes while watching my class debate the Plessy v. Ferguson case, I found the best source of AI to organize and provide a response (Claude.ai). I then edited the text and added photos/links.