Plessy v. Ferguson and Jim Crow Laws

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson is a classic example of how the courts in the US were used to entrench racial segregation in the country. Notably, the facts of the case were that in the State of Louisiana, the defendant (Plessy) decided that he was not going to sit in a Jim Crow (black railroad) car (Inwood 564). On the contrary, he decided to board a white railroad car. Louisiana had earlier in 1890 passed a legislation which provided for equal albeit separate (separate and equal) accommodation for the white and the colored races in all of its railroads. As such, Plessy was brought before justice John H. Ferguson, who at that time was situated in the criminal court of New Orleans. After the judge upheld the law of the State (Jim Crow Law), the legislation was challenged in the US Supreme Court on the basis that it was an affront to the 13th and 14th Amendments. The Supreme Court by a majority ruling of 7-1 held that the law of the state was merely an implication of distinction between the white and black race and was, therefore, not in any way conflicting with the 13th and 14th Amendments. As such, according to Gongora-Mera, the court established and qualified the separate but equal doctrine which was later overturned by the case of Brown v. Board of Education decision decided in 1954 (56). The decision of the supreme court Plessy vs Ferguson was unjust as it entrenched racial segregation and the superiority of the white race because it stamped the black race with inferiority, made the white race more superior and dominant, hence giving way for more future racial injustices against the people of color.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Jim Crow Laws were given life by the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and thus became the basis for racial segregation in the US. Notably, the Jim Crow Laws were those batteries of social customs as well as Southern laws which gave room for racial segregation. As such, according to Inwood, the decision in the case served to make the segregation laws more ensconced (565). Notably, the existing schools, theatres, the railroads, as well as restaurants and other social places and services ensured that each race had its own services. The poll taxes, as well as the literary requirements, were even more racially discriminative. The people of color, especially the African Americans, were after the decision prevented from exercising their democratic right to vote. Additionally, the people of color were made ineligible to run for offices as they were deemed inferior and unsuitable for such jobs (Hoffer 48). More importantly, the case ensured that the African Americans could not serve on the jury pools as the white race saw them as primitive, uneducated, and wanting in terms of intelligence. Gongora-Mera posits that the assertion by the court that the separate but equal legislation was both just and fair was unfortunate for the history of the people of color in the Southern States because it further gave impetus to the white populations to continue oppressing the blacks (59). The blacks in the south were met with unmatched violence and degradation as the white had the support of the judiciary which was supposed to set a good example. The failure of the federal government through the Supreme Court to challenge the Jim Crow Laws was a manifestation of the unwillingness of the north to ensure the protection of the rights of the citizens in the south.

The reasoning of the judges in the separate but equal Jim Crow Laws explained the part of separate but blatantly ignored the equal part of the law. The reasoning behind the judgment was that the law of the state was just a legal distinction between the white and black race and that the relevant provisions of the Jim Crow Laws did not conflict with the 13th Amendment (Edwards and Grayson 145). Notably, one of the provisions of the 13th Amendment was that it prohibited servitude. The court was convinced by a significant majority that the law did not intend to in any way introduce servitude as a forbidden aspect. Additionally, according to Inwood, the court was of the view that the introduction of the 14tth Amendment was that it ensured the enforcement of absolute equality of the white and black races before the law (564). As such, the Supreme Court held that the law which Plessy was alleged to have broken required separation but did not imply the inferiority of either of the two races. However, such an assertion cannot be far from the truth. The ruling of the court essentially meant that those who were in the place of power and authority dominated against the other race (Hoffer 18). The fact that the white race was in control made the people of color experience unprecedented violence from the whites as well as mistreatment and segregation. The racial segregation which was stamped by the Supreme Court demonstrated that the federal government was okay with the superiority of the white race and the inferiority of people of color (Gongora-Mera 58). The decision was an injustice to the African Americans as it entrenched a culture of class and racial differences which resulted in the disintegration of the American society.

The judgment in the case of Plessy vs Ferguson was against the US Constitution as the Jim Crow Laws deemed the white race as dominant compared to the black race. Notably, the Constitution was clear that no race was superior or dominant. Additionally, it was the provision of the Constitution that there is no ruling class of citizens. As such, Inwood states that the Constitution was blind when it came to the color of the citizens and did not envisage a situation whereby one race would use its affinity to power to degrade the other and trample on the rights of the lesser race (566). With respect to the issue of civil rights, the constitution was clear that all citizens were equal before the law. As such, the decision of the supreme court in the case provides an impetus to the state's legislature to legally place inferiority to a significant number of American citizens (Chafe, Raymond, and Robert 46). The ruling in the case was an expansion of restrictive legislation in most of the southern states and ensured that racial segregation became a norm. However, Gongora-Mera asserts that it is not a surprise considering that the decision was made by white judges who did not have a foundation of the effects of the segregation which was being propagated by the state law (58). Additionally, most of them were conservative and thereby wanted to please the white populations. Although the Supreme Court was expected by the black race to overturn the decision of the lower court, it upheld it and even gave a misguided application and interpretation of the state law. The state legislation was clearly against the Constitution and the majority ruling was not only erroneous but also unjust.

The majority decision was a perversion of justice as the incidences of racial discrimination which happened thereafter made the white race seem dominant and superior. One of the incidences was the literacy for voting. In specific, states made laws which placed discrimination on the African American voters and which was not the case with the white Americans (Gongora-Mera 57). For instance, the people of color had to pay to vote while the whites were expected to participate in a free election. The aspect of the grandfather clause which was a provision of the Jim Crow Clause was another example of how the decision was an affront to the equal enjoyment of rights for the Americans irrespective of their color. Notably, the grandfather clause provided that if the grandfathers of the people of color voted, then their next generation could vote (Stokes and Steven 266). However, Hoffer clarifies that no African American grandfather voted which essentially meant that they could not vote (12). The Jim Crow Laws also made it a crime for interracial marriages between the blacks and the whites. As a result, the examples are a demonstration of both de jure segregation (segregation by law) as well as de facto segregation (segregation by practice). In specific, according to Lipsitz, the fact that the laws prohibited social interactions between the whites and the blacks especially in public places such as in the transportation sector was enough justification that the law was unjust and Plessy did not breach any rational laws as it was against the constitutional provisions on equality and equity (120). The decision was political in that it was meant to please the ruling class at the expense of the large portions of people of color in the southern parts of the country.

Although the defendant, Plessy aimed at defending himself against the oppressive and unjust law, the Supreme Court had the goal of pleasing the ruling class and hence could not afford to make a just, impartial, and acceptable decision. The defendant boarded the white car intentionally with the aim of challenging the draconian and discriminative Jim Crow Laws in court (Hoffer 15). Notably, even after Plessy was deemed by the lower court to have contravened the Jim Crow Laws of the state of Louisiana, he proceeded to the highest court in the land to challenge the discriminative laws. The effort made was to ensure that the defendant got justice. However, the ruling of the majority of the judges was a shocker to many people of color and a celebration to a majority of the white American populations. The misapprehension of the law resulted in a continued mistreatment and discrimination (Lipsitz 119). The judgment coupled with the Jim Crow Laws made African Americans feel not only segregated against but also inferior compared to the other races. Additionally, the people of color had to deal with constant and unending threats of violence from some of the existing extremists who did not value them and place them in the same category of the human race (Inwood 566). A majority of the African Americans had the same feeling that the decision in the case, as well as the Jim Crow Laws, were not only unfair but also unconstitutional and hence unjust. Some of the racists' organizations that exist in the contemporary American society such as the KKK have their ideological foundations in the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson as well as the Jim Crow Laws.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the decision of the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson coupled with the Jim Crow Laws presented unfair and unconstitutional aspects which served to install white superiority and entrench racial segregation in the American society. The failure by the US Supreme Court to declare the Jim Crow Laws of the state of Louisiana unconstitutional served to provide impetus to the white supremacists to continue oppressing and discriminating against the people of color. The Jim Crow Laws doctrine of separate but equal was supported by the decision. Clearly, the court was serving the interests of the whites and thus made an interpretation which seemed to favor them. Although the decision significantly addressed the aspect of separate, it failed to address that of equal and thereby went against the 13th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. The decision was essentially a perversion of justice as it upheld the draconian and discriminative Jim Crow Laws. The various incidences of segregation and discrimination which ensued after the decision such as vote tax, grandfather clause, and the literacy test for voting are just but some of the grounds which should have convinced the Supreme Court, as the apex court, to rule in favor of Plessy. However, the blatant disregard for the fundamental tenets of the Constitution by the majority judges in the decision and the apparent lack of impartiality makes the decision go down in history as one of the most unjust.

Works Cited

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Chafe, William Henry, Raymond Gavins, and Robert Korstad, eds. Rememb...