Talk:Plessy v. Ferguson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Plessy v. Ferguson as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| High | This article has been assessed as High-importance on the assessment scale. |
An event mentioned in this article is a May 18 selected anniversary
Contents |
[edit] Plessey's Race
the writer of this article placed emphasis on the fact that Plessy was 1/8 black. Sometimes people seem to forget that. It never fails to puzzle me that a man who is only an 1/8th black could even look black, to a point where he would be asked to sit in the "black section." Either the train conductor was hyper/unnaturally aware of any faint trace of "color" in the skin or he knew Plessy, or of his family, from before the fact. Actually, the train conductor had been previously informed that there was going to be a protest that day. Plessy had actually belonged to a specific committee that challenged the segregation on public trains. As for how did the conductor know it was Plessy who was involved is still a mystery to me. --Chandni S
It's a very strange case. --Ashley Rovira 22:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't strange, it was planned. Those who wanted to challenge "separate but equal" deliberately chose to deploy a person who looked white, but was black according to law, in order to highlight the unfairness of the law allowing racial segregation. To ensure that Plessy would be ordered out of the white section of the train, the railroad was told that he would be aboard. But the railroad employees didn't know and couldn't tell who the black was sitting in the white section, so Plessy told them himself -- otherwise there would have been no point to the entire adventure. The railroad could then have prevented a lawsuit they knew they were being set up for but 1. other white passengers, overhearing Plessy, would certainly have objected -- they were paying a premium to be seated only with fellow whites. 2. the railroad wanted to enforce its policy, i.e. to eject any Negro discovered to be violating its rules and scaring its market by infiltrating white passenger compartments (blacks who could pass for white were notoriously common in Louisiana, thanks to the genetic legacy of the "Octoroon Balls"). Since the railroad won their case in court, their decision to eject Plessy was vindicated legally and market-wise, if not morally. Lethiere 19:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Plessy case is a lesson for the planners of civil rights litigation. Setting up a case to ask what difference legal race means when the party appears to belong to another race taunted the Court. The better case would have a clearly black person seek to ride with a white person to discuss business on the train. Where would the railroad seat them? That would reveal the way segregation interfered with economic development in the South. Today, we can all learn to pick our cases more wisely. r3 02:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The article says:
- Justice Brown declared, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption chodemanthat the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
Then it adds:
- In other words, the Court held that state governments could bar blacks from public facilities based on traditional notions of racial inferiority.
But that's not what Brown said. He said that while African Americans and Caucasian Americans were separated, the fact that one was supperior or inferior to the other only came from what African American people themselves were suggesting in their lawsuit. One may disgree with that statement, but that is his point. I'm replacing "In other words" with "In consequence".
There seems to be a conflict in the "facts" of the Plessy v. Ferguson United States Supreme Court decision. In the main article of Plessy v. Ferguson it states :
"The railroad company had been informed already as to Plessy's racial lineage, and after Plessy had taken a seat in the whites-only railway car, he was asked to vacate it and sit instead in the blacks-only car. Plessy refused and was arrested immediately."
which seems to indicate that a third party had informed beforehand by a third party of Plessy's racial liniage. This is contardicted by the Homer Plessy page which states:
"On June 7, 1892, Plessy bought a first-class ticket on the East Louisiana Railroad, running between New Orleans and Covington, and sat in the "whites only" passenger car. When the conductor came to collect his ticket, he told him that he was 1/8 African American, and he was refusing sit in the black only car."
Could someone out there who has any idea about this case please rectify this contradiction.
Actualy, within the text, it is stated that "Plessy appeared to be a white man, and consequently he had to inform the conductor of his heritage before any objection was even made to his seat choice."
[edit] WTF, mate?
Why is the French version of this article longer than the English? They have the legal reasoning from the majority and dissent -- let's get somebody to write that in English!
Agreed -- we just covered chode this in my con law class; there's a heck of a lot more to say about it -- the "priveleges and immunities" v. "priveleges or immunities" clauses, equal protection clause, due process clause, and 13th & 14th Amendments each deserve at least a paragraph, not to mention at least a sentence or two on the distinction between substantive and procedural due process used by Brown. Harlan's dissent is legendary and should be given a lot more play. I'll give it what time I have soon, hopefully. Ryanluck 04:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] later cases
This article notes that Plessy found the quality of accomodation in the whites-only and blacks-only first-class railroad cars to be equivalent, and therefore "separate but equal", but also notes that the same was not true of many other segregated facilities. The obvious question that raises then is: Did anyone challenge any other facilities, not on the mere fact of their being segregated, but specifically on the basis of their being unequal? If so, did any of those challenges reach the Supreme Court? This seems like it'd be useful information towards the end of the article. --Delirium 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)..
[edit] Thirteenth Amendment vs. Fourteenth Amendment
Thirteenth Amendment vs. Fourteenth Amendment???
Wasn't it the Fourteenth Amendment???? Equal Protection of the Laws instead of the abolishion of involuntary servitute that Plessy claimed to be violated.
My history textbooks says so and it makes more sense in my eyes.
Sources: Schmidt Shelly Bardes, American Governmant and Politics Today, 2005-2006 Alternate Edition, page 153.
Dynmics of Democracy, 2004 Version, Third Edition, Peverill Squire and more, page 147.
--Carsten79 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Who is Justice Pham, I've never heard of him and aparently google has not either. With Brewer sitting out, it should have been a 7-1 majority however the site says 8-1 with brewer out and a mysterious pham appearing twice in the article.
--ARiina 23:01, 14 November 2006 (EST)
The decision was 7-1, so it seems, though all the references I can find simply state that Brown was writing "for the court" while Harlan dissented and Brewer didn't take part. The mysterious "Pham" may be Rufus Peckham of Lochner fame. The reason the 13th Amendment comes up is that in his dissent Harlan states "We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow-citizens, our equals before the law." (American Constitutional Law, Fisher, 6th ed., p. 769.) The "bond of servitude" seems to be a clear reference to the 13th Amendment, which prohibits "involuntary servitude." The 13th Amendment Dogdoridns does seem a bit redundant in light of the 14th's equal protection clause, but they had different purposes. The 13th was specifically to end black slavery, so Harlan's reference to it may be a reference that the Louisiana laws violate even the most basic notion of equal protection present in the Constitution. Ryanluck 16:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
This article's seeing a lot of vandalism, how about some protection to stop this continuing to happen? Tphi 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ferguson?
This article identifies Homer Plessy but makes no mention of the other party to the case, John Howard Ferguson, who I believe was the Lousiana judge who made the initial ruling against Plessy. Could we get some information on his role? MK2 19:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed that too. Considering his name is also linked to both the case and the article, readers should know who John Ferguson was, along with Homer Plessy. Dialwon 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. The case involves both Homer A. Plessy and Ferguson. I don't think that readers should be restricted on this knowledge in the Plessy vs. Ferguson article. It would be rather convenient for information-seekers to find information on Ferguson in this article instead of having to search for a whole new article. --~Keith (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech
Booker T. Washington delivered the 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech in the year "prior" to Plessy v. Ferguson--September 18, 1895. The article states, "Along with Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise address, delivered the same year, which accepted black social isolation from white society, Plessy provided an impetus for further segregation laws."
The article should be edited to read, "Along with Booker T. Washington's Atlanta Compromise address, delivered the previous year, which accepted black social isolation from white society, Plessy provided an impetus for further segregation laws."
Thanks. --Robert Lucas 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ATLANTA COMPROMISE A YEAR EARLIER
Washington's Atlanta Compromise speech was a year earlier, in 1895, not the same year as Plessy, as the article states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.243.216 (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
