Plessy v. Ferguson

The Legal Case for Separate Cars: How Louisiana Defended Its Law in Plessy v. Ferguson

When people talk about Plessy v. Ferguson, they usually talk about how it ended. But the state of Louisiana had to win its case in the courtroom of 1896, using the law as it stood then. Here is how its lawyers built that argument, and why it worked.

The setup

In 1892, Homer Plessy sat in a whites-only railroad car in New Orleans and was arrested on purpose, to challenge Louisiana’s Separate Car Act. Four years later, the Supreme Court sided with the state in Plessy v. Ferguson.

The state’s argument rested on three legal claims.

Claim one: It’s a normal use of state power

States have broad power to regulate businesses operating inside their borders. That includes railroads, and it includes keeping order on crowded trains.

The Court had already blessed a similar Mississippi law in Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway v. Mississippi(1890). Louisiana’s own supreme court had upheld this very statute.

What about Hall v. DeCuir (1878), where the Court struck down a Louisiana law about race on steamboats? The state had an easy answer. That case was about interstate commerce. Plessy rode a train that stayed inside Louisiana.

The legal test was whether the law was reasonable. The state said it was.

Claim two: Equal protection doesn’t mean identical treatment

The Fourteenth Amendment promises “equal protection of the laws.” Louisiana argued that the law gave exactly that. It applied to both races, and it required equal accommodations.

A white passenger couldn’t sit in the Black car, and a Black passenger couldn’t sit in the white one. The state pointed to Pace v. Alabama (1883), where the Court upheld a law that punished both races equally and found no equal protection problem.

It also pointed to Railroad Co. v. Brown (1873). There, the Court treated separate cars as acceptable as long as they were equal.

Then came the pile of precedents. Pennsylvania had upheld separate railway cars. Massachusetts, Ohio, Indiana, California, and New York had upheld separate schools. The Massachusetts case, Roberts v. City of Boston (1849), was the oldest and best known.

The state’s lawyers even had a history argument. The Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment also set up separate schools in Washington, D.C. If the amendment’s authors saw no conflict, the argument went, neither should the Court.

Claim three: Plessy’s cases are different

Plessy’s lawyers cited several wins for Black citizens. The state said each one involved something else.

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) struck down a ban on Black jurors. But that was a flat exclusion from a government role. Plessy was excluded from nothing. He could ride the train, at the same price, in an equal car.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) dealt with a neutral law enforced in a plainly discriminatory way against Chinese laundry owners. The state said nothing like that appeared in Plessy’s record.

And the Civil Rights Cases (1883) had already rejected the idea that discrimination in public places is a “badge of slavery” under the Thirteenth Amendment. Plessy wasn’t enslaved, the state argued. He was assigned a seat.

The “badge of inferiority” problem

Plessy’s side said the law labeled Black passengers as inferior. The state’s response was blunt. The law says no such thing, so if anyone reads inferiority into it, that’s in the reader’s head.

On due process, who counts as white or Black is a question of state law, decided by state courts, and Plessy got a trial. His lawyer’s idea that “the reputation of being white” counts as protected property didn’t get far either.

How it ended

The Supreme Court agreed with Louisiana, 7 to 1. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote that the Fourteenth Amendment secured legal equality, not social equality.

One justice disagreed. John Marshall Harlan’s dissent said the Constitution is “color-blind” and that the law’s real purpose was obvious. He warned the ruling would prove as damaging as Dred Scott.

History sided with Harlan. In 1954, the Court rejected “separate but equal” in Brown v. Board of Education.

But the 1896 argument still shows something useful. A legal case can be tightly built, supported by precedent, and still be wrong.

Gone with the Wind Reflection

Gone with the Wind (1939)

After watching, "Gone with the Wind", I extended my knowledge on how life really is during war by putting myself in certain characters shoes. Some characters were particularly complex and focused on, but the character that stood out to me the most is Melanie Hamilton. 

Melanie Hamilton and Scarlett O'Hara

At first, Melanie doesn't seem like an important character in the movie. Compared to the main character Scarlett O'Hara, she seems quiet and more to herself. At Twelve Oaks, Scarlett looks like she's competing for attention while Melanie is reserved and uninterested. This however, does not make her weak. 

Melanie had genuine trust in Scarlett, and does not treat her as an enemy. When Scarlett kills the soldier, Melanie is seen carrying a sword, prepared to help with defending the household. She is not helpless. 

This changed the way I initially perceived Melanie, because I relate to her gentle personality while also feeling protective over loved ones. Even though she is a smaller character than Scarlett, she is more important than the audience may uncover. 

Rhett Butler

Another character that stood out to me is Rhett Butler. Unlike the other characters, he had much more realistic reactions to the situations that occurred during the movie. While others were focused on fighting, he found opportunities to make money.

Rhett openly admitted that he was "for profit, and profit only", instead of pretending his only motivation was his loyalty to the South. 

Even though this may seem selfish to some viewers, in my opinion his honesty is respectable. Today, I think people would relate to him, and find ways to profit even during war.

I think Rhett represents the idea that even during a time as horrible as war, people will always look out for themselves, and how any situation can benefit them. This sounds insensitive, but I recognize the difference between taking advantage of the suffering of people and finding a way to make money. 

Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler

Scarlett had the most character development from her experiences during the time of the war. Initially, she focused on male attention, parties, and her appearance. But, as the war becomes more serious, her focus starts to change.

She's forced into situations that require her to become more responsible. An example of this is helping Melanie escape Atlanta. The war develops Scarlett into a stronger character than the lifestyle she had before. 

Scarlett shows to me how women were definitely changed after the war, because it forced them to give up the Southern-Belle lifestyle, and made them realize how independent they were capable of being. 

If this is the case with the civil war, why would it be any different from other wars? I can infer as more wars kept occurring, it added to the development of women and their freedom from the stereotypical house-wife lifestyle. 

In fact, during World War II, since many men were drafted, women took on traditionally male jobs and became factory workers, mechanics, nurses, etc. 

Overall, I would describe Gone with the Wind as eye-opening and informative. Not necessarily because the characters storylines were factual, but because the situations they were put in were realistic. This was a great way the film makers created connection with the audience on a topic most viewers are unfamiliar with.