Plessy v. Ferguson Mock Trial Reflection

      Today in class we conducted a mock trial of the Supreme Court case: Plessy v. Ferguson 1896 regarding the issue of "separate but equal." In summary of the facts, a man named Plessy purchased a first-class ticket at a Louisiana Railroad Station, and subsequently proceeded to board the East Louisiana Railroad. They key issue was the fact that the railroad car was "whites only." However, the state of Louisiana made a generally applicable law that railroad companies were obligated to provide separate accommodations of black and white travels, thus there was De-Jure segregation at the state level. The first part of the issue lies in Mr. Plessy's racial background; when purchasing the ticket, he informed the company that he was merely 1/8th African American, which technically made him 7/8th white. After Mr. Plessy decided to seat himself in the whites-only section, he was asked to leave; when he refused, he was then issued a $25 fine for violating the Separate Car Act, as well as arrested. Plessy in turn, decided to sue stating that his 13th and 14th amendment rights were being violated. 

        The two teams, Team Lincoln and Team Jefferson divided in order to argue both in favor and against Mr. Plessy. The first team to state their case was Team Jefferson, who argued in favor of Mr. Plessy. They argued first that Mr. Plessy was only 1/8th African American and 7/8th white. How was he supposed to be classified? Also, they argued that Plessy was allowed to purchase a ticket because  the Railroad company was considered to be "common carrier" which meant that there was to be no racial distinction among passengers. Mr. Plessy's based their argument off the fact that the 13th and 14th Amendments provided for equal treatment of all US citizens, it also made African Americans citizens. 

      Team Lincoln then argued in favor of the State. First and foremost, they stated that Mr. Plessy deliberately informed the Railroad Company that he was black while purchasing the ticket, making it his choice to disclose his racial heritage. Second, the Railroad Companies did in fact provide equal transportation for both races, based off economic status. The quality of the cars was determined based off the general economic status of the passengers, and how much they could pay to ride. The fact that the cars were divided by race fueled the idea of "separate but equal" meaning that blacks were given the same accommodations as whites, just separate from them.

      At the end of the case, the Supreme Court sided with the state claiming that the law was constitutional, and that there was no significant difference between the quality of the black cars versus the white cars, and also rejected the fact that there was any 14th Amendment violations at play. The court argued that the state of Louisiana's law did not imply that blacks were inferior in anyway; therefore, the separation of blacks and whites was simply a matter of "public policy." This case set the precedence for the creation of more segregation laws based off the concept of "separate but equal." I personally believe that the issue here had many factors at play; I personally find it difficult to choose a side; both sides made extremely valid arguments that I enjoyed listening to. At the end of the day, it is difficult to argue with the facts. 
photo credit: http://northwesthistoryexpress.com/timeline/transportation1800/PennsylvaniaTrain.jpg