《英语国家社会与文化》课程教学资源（英文版）Plessy v Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson $25 Louisiana Separate car Act (1890; equal but separate→·2 accommodations” 20 days Corbis.com in jail Homer plessy colored car 1892 30. shoemaker √/8 white;l/8 black Judge John Howard Ferguson Unconstitutional on trains that traveled through Ferguson found plessy several states. guilty of refusing to leave the white car

Plessy v. Ferguson Louisiana Separate Car Act (1890): "equal but separate accommodations” $25 20 days in jail PENALTY Homer Plessy 30, shoemaker 7/8white; 1/8black colored car 1892 Judge John Howard Ferguson "unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states." Ferguson found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car

In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States found Homer Plessy guilty once again. Justice Henry Brown, the speaker for the eight-person majority wrote: That the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery . is too clear for argument.a statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races . has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races. The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either

In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States found Homer Plessy guilty once again. Justice Henry Brown, the speaker for the eight-person majority, wrote: "That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races …has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth Amendment] was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either

Our constitution is colorblind. and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful . The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the John Marshall Harlan law established by the Constitution. It (1833-1911) cannot be justified upon any legal grounds

John Marshall Harlan (1833-1911) "Our constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. . .The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds

Brown v. board of education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Chief Justice Earl Warren 1954 a black third-grader Linda Brown, 1951, Topeka, Kansas

Brown v. Board of Education A black third-grader Linda Brown, 1951, Topeka, Kansas “…the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” Chief Justice Earl Warren, 1954

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court: "We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment