Critical Analysis of Plessy Vs Ferguson Case

The Historical Context of Plessy v. Ferguson

The Plessy v. Ferguson case was one of the many significant trials in the 1800s among many others. It involved Homer Adolph Plessy going against John Ferguson over segregation on one of his trains departing from New Orleans to Louisiana. This trial cast a spotlight on issues of equality. The Plessy v. Ferguson case was held in the Supreme Court, presented on April 13, 1896, and a decision was reached by May 18, 1896. The case was centered on the quest for equal treatment and the elimination of segregation on the company's trains. Louisiana had enacted segregation laws as long as equal treatment was maintained. By "equal treatment," they meant separation but with the same facilities. Ferguson and his company believed that racial separation was permissible as long as equal rights were granted, a notion that remains controversial. Plessy was Caucasian and one-eighth African American.

Critical Analysis of the Plessy v. Ferguson Case

Adolph boarded a train operated by the Ferguson company. Since Plessy appeared Caucasian, he chose to sit with the Caucasian passengers because there was an empty car, and he felt he had the right to sit there due to his predominantly Caucasian appearance. Plessy was arrested because he was one-eighth African American and sat in the white section of the train. He also refused to sit in the cars designated for African Americans because he appeared more Caucasian than African American. Plessy sought to challenge segregation in court. Despite not being physically harmed, he was determined to contest the segregation law in Louisiana. Plessy's argument was that segregation violated the Constitution. He felt his rights were being infringed upon and that he should be allowed to sit wherever he wished. Plessy filed a petition against Ferguson's train company to demonstrate that racial separation was unjust. The rights he believed were being violated were those guaranteed by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment, in simple terms, declares slavery illegal, while the Fourteenth Amendment states that states cannot deprive anyone of their citizenship rights. Plessy felt that his citizenship rights were not being upheld.

The segregation law was dividing America, which is why I believe Plessy was justified in his actions. The case became a lengthy trial due to the difficulty in determining whether Adolph or John was in the right. The judge called for a vote on the trial. The vote was seven to one, resulting in Plessy's petition being overruled due to insufficient evidence to support his claim. Conversely, John had substantial evidence. The ruling was primarily based on the interpretation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. In Louisiana, racial separation was legally endorsed. Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, and Plessy was not being compelled to work involuntarily; he was merely asked to move because he was one-eighth Black, even though he identified predominantly as white. I do not believe the law should have been upheld because racial separation is fundamentally wrong, and I believe individuals should have the freedom to sit wherever they choose, regardless of their skin color or how they identify.

References

• Brown, M. (2004). Race, Law, and American Society: 1607-Present. Routledge.
• Robinson, W. (1996). The Plessy Case: A Legal-Historical Interpretation. LSU Press.
• Smith, J. (2020). The Significance of Plessy v. Ferguson in American History. Journal of American History, 106(3), 789-812.