Plessy v. Ferguson Argument

 

Plessy v. Ferguson Argument

Ladies and gentlemen, and esteemed judges,

I stand here today to solidify the argument on behalf of the side of Honorary John H. Ferguson. On June 7, 1892, the plaintiff Homer Plessy, who identifies as a black man bought a first-class ticket on the 4:15 p.m. train that was New Orleans bound for Covington, Louisiana. His decision to sit in a white railroad car on the East Louisiana Local was deliberately of wrongdoing, as it violated the established 1890 laws and Section 2 of the Louisiana Separate Car Act. Under the law, "Any passenger insisting on going into a coach or compartment to which by race he does not belong, shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars, or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in parish prison."

It is essential to acknowledge that the "Separate but Equal" doctrine deems constitutional on intrastate railroads. The court ruled the protections of the 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights (like voting and jury service), not "social rights" (sitting in the railroad car of your choice") of individuals. Some blacks might argue that the "colored cars" were inferior to the "white cars" but that is solely because the colored race chooses to believe that. They chose to believe that everything that was given to a white person was better than what they were given. To put it simply, it's a matter of opinion. 

This law is not unconstitutional! The Separate Car Act does not conflict with the 13th Amendment because it does not reestablish slavery or constitute a 'badge' of slavery or servitude. As far as the 14th Amendment, it does not conflict with that either. The 14th Amendment was intended to secure only the legal equality of African Americans and whites, not social equality.

Plessy knowingly defied this law when he entered the white car, which was reserved for passengers classified as white. Regardless of one's opinion on segregation, the law of the land must be respected. Plessy's action was a direct challenge to the legal order. This was an act of Civil disobedience! His actions had the potential to ignite chaos and violence and potentially endanger the lives of innocent people. 

Ladies and gentlemen, and esteemed judges, as I conclude my argument, I uphold the need for states to have some level of freedom in making decisions about their local policies. Plessy's actions deliberately undermined and disrespected the legal order of the country. It is essential for all citizens, regardless of race, to respect the laws and norms of the nation. Otherwise, acts of civil disobedience will continue to divide the fine citizens of our country.

Thank you.

References:

www.history.com

www.britannica.com

www.supreme.justia.com