Plessy v Ferguson Reax

 

Plessy v Ferguson was a landmark case in which established the so called “separate but equal” doctrine. This was important because it provided precedent, which I’ve even used in our mock trials, for blacks to be separate as well as, inadvertently as it may be, for them to have worse accommodations.

For background, the Separate Car Act of 1890 was a piece of legislation that made it mandatory for there to be separate railway accommodations for colored and non-colored passengers. Homer Plessy was specifically chosen by his activist group, the Citizens’ Committee, to challenge the law due to his fair skin. The idea was that, since Plessy was so fair skinned, it would show how unnecessary the law was because a lot of people couldn’t tell whether he was white or black. The plan was simple and consisted of four parts. Homer Plessy would intentionally sit in a whites only section of the train. He would then intentionally self-identify as a black man. Plessy would then be arrested and this arrest would be then be used as a basis in challenging the constitutionality of the train car law in court. 

In court, Plessy’s legal team argued that the law violated Plessy’s 13^th and 14^th amendment protections. Specifically, the Equal Protection Clause in the 14^th amendment which states in part, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Plessy’s team argued that this specific language meant that states must provide equal protections under the law to all citizens no matter race, gender, or religion.

The Supreme Court ruled in a manner of 7-1 against Plessy. This established the separate but equal doctrine with Justice Henry Billings Brown writing the majority opinion arguing that segregation was constitutional as long as the separate facilities were equal, which we all know to be a fallacy. The decision made racial segregation legal and became the reference of those looking to justify the newly placed “Jim Crow” laws. The lone dissent came from Justice John Marshall Harlan stating, “Our Constitution is color blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Town Hall Post

 

Today I enjoyed the privilege of listening to and learning about the facts of several key figures’ life stories during our “Town Hall”. These speakers included the likes of formidable names such as Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, as well as Harriet Jacobs, who we as a learning community have had the privilege of learning about in our other class. However, one of the aspects of our town hall that I really enjoyed was the fact that we got the opportunity to hear about life stories that we would’ve otherwise never even hear about. These included names such as Lucretia Mott, Richard Allen, and William Lloyd Garrison. So, rather than reflect on names that everyone already knows of, in this post, I am choosing to educate of the knowledge I’ve gained on the not so well known figures that I learned about.

Lucretia Mott was born on January 3^rd, 1793, in Nantucket, Massachusetts. Mott was born into a Quaker family. This was crucial in her development into who we know her as today because Quakers prioritized values such as equality and peace. Mott was allowed a highly advanced education compared to her female counterparts during this era. After completing her education, Mott decided to become a teacher, which was one of very few options available to women as a career at the time. In the year 1811 she got married to a man by the name of James Mott who was also a Quaker as well as being an abolitionist. Lucretia and James had six children. Mott’s on the job experience as a mother was also one of the guiding life principles that helped her become as we know her now. Because of her upbringing, Mott believed that slavery was a moral evil, and she attested this to the fact that all living individuals possessed an “inner light”. In the early 1830’s she helped found the Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society. This was one of the first groups of its kind. The group helped promote abolitionism as well as raise awareness about the struggles that enslaved individuals faced. Through her work and teachings, Mott herself began to see the parallels between the plights of those who were enslaved and women and began to draw similarities to how those two things related to one another.

Richard Allen was born as a slave in Philadelphia who was able to purchase his own freedom at the ripe age of 26. Allen, soon after buying his freedom, decided to become a part of the Methodist church. Around this time, Richard Allen began to become widely known for his fiery preaching style. However, due to the times he and his black clergy were in, Allen faced a lot of discrimination and racism from people withing the very churches he spoke at. In 1787, it is reported that Allen and his congregation, decided to walk out of their then church of St, George’s, and begin working on the establishment of a new kind of church. In the year 1816, Allen launched the First General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. He was the first ever bishop for the AME church. Under the leadership of Allen, the AME church advocated for civil rights and took a hard stance against slavery. The AME church is one of the largest black denominations today largely in part from the genius of Richard Allen.

William Lloyd Garrison was born on December 12, 1805, in Newburyport, Massachusetts. Due to his limited education, Garrison began his work as a printer’s apprentice. In the year 1831, Garrison founded “The Liberator”. This was a newspaper which became one of the loudest voices in the abolitionist movement. Garrison and The Liberator’s views were seen as radical at the time due to Garrison’s takes on slavery which included calls for immediate emancipation without compensation for slave owners. Garrison also was a strong advocate for women’s rights; even going as far as attending the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848, which was the first women’s rights convention in the United States. Garrison also supported the Declaration of Sentiments which called for the equal rights of women, this included women’s suffrage. Garrison believed that the same moral principles which called for the immediate ending of slavery also demanded an opportunity for women’s rights and ultimately, equality. Garrison also helped found the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833.

Heat of the Night

 “In the Heat of the Night”, is a 1967 film which centers around a black detective from the city of Philadelphia (Sydney Poitier). The black detective goes by the name of Virgil Tibbs, and we are introduced to him in the small town of Sparta, Mississippi for unspecified reasons. What Tibbs didn’t know of yet was the fact that he was about to be arrested in this small town, simply for being black. A wealthy, do-good businessman was killed earlier that morning and Tibbs is picked up as the prime suspect in the murder. After Tibbs is brought in and interrogated by the chief of police, Bill Gillespie (Rod Steiger), we finally get to learn, as the audience, who Tibbs really is. Gillespie then, reluctantly, implores Tibbs for his help and this is when the true story begins. 

After Tibbs accepts the fact that he is going to have to help with this case he really cares nothing for, he begins examining the crime scene. Upon examination he comes to the conclusion that the murder of the wealthy businessman was the doing of another wealthy businessman, Mr. Endicott. Mr. Tibbs had learned of the dead wealthy businessman’s plans to open up a factory, employ blacks, and take money from the pockets of Endicott. 

The film does a great job of using the murder to somewhat paint a picture of the environments around race during this time, especially in the south. This was a time when organizations such as the NAACP, SCLC, as well as the SNCC were all very active and campaigning for equal rights. The summer of ’67 saw race riots in cities such as Detroit, Newark, and Minneapolis. The riot in specifically Detroit, led to the deaths of 43 individuals, hundreds of injuries, as well as extensive property damage. Around this time, we also had the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act which caused uproar amongst the alt-right community. Most importantly what we saw during this time were difficult discussions being had. Discussions that centered around the ideals of how we were to better incorporate blacks into society.

In and Around the 14th Amendment (final presentation)

 

In Dredd Scott v Sandford, Dredd Scott was a slave who was originally purchased in Missouri but his owner, Dr. John Emerson needed to move around a lot due to his job as a surgeon in the army. So, the surgeon took Scott with him to Fort Armstrong in Illinois, which is a free state, as well as Fort Snelling, which was in Wisconsin territory (now Minnesota), Where slavery just so happened to be prohibited due to agreements made in the Missouri Compromise. These moves would eventually become Scott’s basis in his argument for freedom from slavery. Under a concept of “free soil”, which was widely adhered to at the time, slaves brought to free territories could claim their freedom. However, during the case, the supreme court issued a devastating ruling which stated that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not to be considered citizens of the United States. Also, that slaves were property, and that the federal government could not deprive people of their “property” without due process. The Supreme Court also made the decision to rule the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional which allowed slavery to have the opportunity to expand into all territories.

The 13^th amendment was the first of the “reconstruction amendments” and was the first of its kind to legally “abolish slavery” and/or involuntary servitude. The amendment was passed at the end of the civil war and served as one of the first blows to make right the way of life for those affected by slavery pre civil war era. The amendment consists of two main sections. Section 1 states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Section one of this amendment breaks down two specific forms of forced labor. The first is slavery whereas the official definition in this context would be the complete ownership of human beings as property and the second is involuntary servitude, which would be forced labor where individuals are compelled to work against their will. One critical phrase in this section of the amendment are the words, “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” This loophole led to thousands to be unduly prosecuted and unjustly forced back into different forms of slavery and involuntary servitude. 

The second crucial part of the amendment read, “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Now, this section was pretty cut and dry and really was just trying to say that the legislative enforcement power in the clause explicitly grants congress the constitutional authority to create, as well as pass laws, that would fully enforce the amendments intention to abolish all various forms of slavery and involuntary servitude. The specific language used in this section of the amendment such as, “appropriate legislation” was crucial because it gave considerable discretion to congress in terms of how and when they could craft specific laws regarding the amendment. This meant that congress can now: develop criminal penalties for those attempting to enslave others, create civil rights protections, establish mechanisms to investigate and prosecute instances of involuntary servitude, as well as develop comprehensive legal frameworks to prevent slavery and involuntary servitude in any form. The constitutional significance of this was crucial because, before this, states had primary jurisdiction over the majority of labor as well as personal freedom issues. So, this amendment pretty much took that power and handed it up to the federal level of jurisdiction.

The reconstruction was the period of time almost immediately after the civil war ended. This was a time when blacks sat on the house of representatives. Poor whites and blacks felt connected through common struggle. Black hoped for a new system to be put in place where race wasn’t a barrier of entry for as many opportunities as it was during the time.

Leagues of blacks also just came back from fighting in a war in which they were fighting for a country who didn’t even see feasible giving them the rights which they were quite literally shedding blood for. Robert E. Lee and his followers also saw their defeat in the war as simply, “a loss due to a lack of manpower”. In this strain of thought, they thought that they had committed no wrongs in the eyes of the Lord and that everything should go back to the way it was before the war. 

True freedom in this time was measured by land, and how much of it you owned. This is where we see the Freedman’s Bureau come into play. The Bureau was put in place to make sure that blacks had a fair opportunity post slavery. A lot of the capital that was given to the program came from land which was acquired from seizures during the war. The term “40 acres and a mule” comes from the Freedman’s Bureau. This was to make right for slavery and the disenfranchisement of blacks from any kind of economic opportunity during slavery. So, like many programs aimed to help those in need in this country with not much give back, if any, to the rich and powerful, it failed. The bureau was told by President Johnson to immediately put an end to its reign of rightdoing. So, many of the freed blacks simply refused to leave the land that was given to them as reparations. 

One quote that I’ve heard from Henry Louis Gates when he’s describing this period in time that really stuck with me was, “One can’t expect that racism just be discontinued due to the ending of slavery”. I think this is true, and to piggyback off of it, I’d take it even further and say that if anything it would just exacerbate the issue because now one side of the spectrum has no structure to practice the racism within. The confederacy, in many ways, got stronger AFTER the civil war. This was, in so many words, because people romanticized that “way of life”. 

During this time, we also have the “Black Codes”. These were introduced as a way of making sure there was as little change from times of slavery to the now post slavery era taking place. Blacks were arrested if they didn’t have a job. Some of these blacks were then forced into labor contracts which is quite literally just a legal version of slavery. White people would claim black children because, according to some of the white people, black parents weren’t suitable to take care of their children.

These whites would raise the children with their sole purpose being servants under them. Again, legal slavery. Nothing was really too much better on the legislative side of things either. Once congress reconvened, they allowed for confederate lawmakers to be a part of congress once again. Due to what was seen as a complete abandonment of legal support for blacks, whites began roaming the streets looking for blacks to kidnap, beat, or kill. Blacks were seen at this time as “beyond the law”.

A case that is extremely relevant when discussing the 14^th amendment is the Slaughterhouse cases. More specifically, the 1873 Supreme Court Case titled, “The Butchers’ Benevolent Association v Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Company”. For background, the Louisiana legislature at this time passed a law called the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company Act. This was a law that granted a single private entity the exclusive right to operate the slaughterhouses in New Orleans, henceforth creating a legal monopoly. Well, a group of local butchers contested the law, they argued that it violated their 14^th amendment rights to “practice their trade and pursue any livelihood”, which would be found in the 14^th amendments privileges and immunities clause.

So, the court, in dramatic fashion, ruled 5-4 in favor with the state of Louisiana. The court’s decision came from an interpretation of the 14^th amendment which saw the amendment creating two distinct kinds of citizenship, national and state. Justice Samuel Miller, who wrote the court’s argument for ruling in favor of Louisiana, contended that the privileges and immunities clause was meant to protect only fundamental national citizenship rights and NOT every possible economic or professional right. The court delivered the opinion that most rights, especially economic rights such as owning as business, were primarily state level concerns. The court also had multiple other rationales for coming to their opinion. One was that they viewed the state’s act as a public health measure, a way to centralize and regulate a potentially unsanitary industry, as well as a reasonable use of state legislative power to protect public welfare. The court also had the concern that a broad interpretation of the 14^th amendment would allow for federal courts to become “super legislatures” who were constantly overturning state economic regulations. The Supreme Court also touched on the historical context of the 14^th amendment stating that it was created for the purposes of protecting recently freed slaves, ensuring basic civil rights, and preventing states from discriminating against African Americans. The court made clear the assertion that the act was NOT ratified to create a broad economic rights protection mechanism.

The court did not wish to undermine state legislative authority, create legal uncertainty, and allow virtually and kind of economic regulation people didn’t like to be challenged in federal court. Which all could have potentially happened if they had ruled in favor of the local butchers. 

EOTO #3

 During this week’s EOTO presentations I was had the privilege of learning on a number of topics. Some of these topics included that of the Negro Motorist Green Book, Executive Order 9981, as well as learning more about one of my personal heroes, Thurgood Marshall.

The Negro Motorist Green Book was a travel guide published by a black postal worker named Victor Hugo Green from the years of 1936 to 1966. This book was seen and used as an invaluable resource during this time due to the both reasonable and unreasonable fears of blacks around the potential of having to travel for any kind of reason during this time. The book included various lists of black owned businesses, warnings of potentially dangerous areas for black people, advice for the blacks traveling through certain areas, as well as information about “sundown towns”. The guide was used by middle class black families who were traveling during the period. Highly in part due to the fact that the middle class and high class were the only ones that could afford to travel at the time. The guide was so widely used and counted upon that it began to garner the name, “Bible of Black Travel”. 

The knowledge gathering process for the “Green Book” was one that heavily involved the communities in which were being detailed in the book. Victor Hugo reportedly relied heavily on friends, fellow travelers, and locals of these communities across the U.S. as he was writing his books. Green was somewhat known for encouraging readers to submit recommendations, reports, and other information.People caught wind of this and eventually began offering up information in droves, allowing others to take a peek in what their specific corner of the U.S. was like for them. The Green Book also had what were called regional correspondents. These were people employed by the Green Book and whose job it was to build networks around the country in order to provide accurate and up to date information.

Executive Order 9981 was an executive order handed down by President Harry S. Truman on July 26^th, 1948. The aim of the order aimed to create “equality of treatment” in the U.S. Armed Forces. The order meant that all military units must be integrated and that black service members were to have the same opportunities for advancement up the chain of command as their white counterparts. The execution of the order practiced the concept of gradualism, with its contents not truly being completely implemented until the late 50s. Influence upon this act comes, in large part, from blacks’ participation in WWII. Approximately 1.2 million blacks served in the military during the war. While facing numerous barriers they still found a way to stand out for their bravery. Examples of this include the Tuskegee Airmen, the 761^st Tank Battalion, as well as the Montford Point Marines. 

Thurgood Marshall was a trailblazer and one of my personal heroes. Marshall was born into a working class family in Baltimore, Maryland. His dad was a railroad porter and waiter, and his mom was a teacher. Marshall attended Howard School of Law, an HBCU. This was crucial in developing his interest in civil rights and his eventual future career path. Whilst attending Howard, Marshall picked up a mentor by the name of Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston was known as a revolutionary during the time due to his unique approach of using law school as a tool in reshaping the world around him in terms of social change and racial equality. Marshall reportedly had troubles finding work straight out of law school, a problem which most attribute to racial prejudice. Due to this as well as other possible factors, Marshall decided to begin his own private law practice in Baltimore, focusing on helping black clients. In 1938, Marshall began working as a full time employee of the NAACP. Started out as legal counsel, Marshall quickly rose up through the ranks and found himself in the position of the civil rights organization’s chief legal strategist. Before the case that most know Marshall for, Brown v Board, Marshall won other key cases as well such as Murray v Pearson (1936), Missouri ex rel. Gaines v Canada (1938), and Chambers v Florida (1940). In 1967, Marshall was nominated to Supreme Court by then President, Lyndon B. Johnson. Marshall served the court from 1967 to 1991, constantly fighting for the rights of the minority.
 

Civil Rights Act of 1964

 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a law that prohibits, or is supposed to prohibit, discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. The act specifically highlighted 4 specific areas: employment, public accommodations, federally funded programs, as well as voting rights.

The official verbiage around employment in the act reads as follows, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This act applies to employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees.

The next topic that the act addressed was that of public accommodations. The act reads as follows, “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” The act defines public accommodations as lodging places, restaurants and lunch counters, gas stations, places of entertainment, and retail establishments. The law was meant to stop discrimination in forms of refusing service, segregating or treating customers differently, and applying different terms or conditions of service to certain patrons. The language used in this section of the act was specifically broad in order to address most types of business that are considered “open to the public”.

Title VI of the act states: “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” This applies to any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance making sure that they are to apply equal access and treatment for all individuals. This was a gigantic deal because this part of the act explicitly deals with schools, hospitals, universities, as well as state and local government agencies.

Key verbiage around voting rights in this act goes as follows: “No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of federal, state, or local law, nor shall any such person willfully fail or refuse to fully count and report such person’s vote.” The section then goes on to state, “Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or privilege secured by section 2,000a-1a or 2,000a-2a of this title, the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action in the appropriate district court of the United States…” The reason for this part of the Civil Rights act is to address the prohibition of preventing qualified individuals from voting, the requirement to now count as well as report all legal votes, as well as addressing the power of the Attorney General to take legal action against voting discrimination. Again, just like in the last section, the verbiage in this section of the act is relatively broad deliberately, in order to prevent various forms of voter suppression.

Reconstruction Video

 

Before the documentary started, we were informed by Professor Smith that “Henry Louis Gates is one of today’s most important public intellectuals.” Throughout the video me, as well as my fellow classmates, were allowed the opportunity to hold a lens looking into the direction of truth and climate of the world during reconstruction. 

For starters, the reconstruction was the period of time almost immediately after the civil war ended. This was a time when blacks sat on the house of representatives. Poor whites and blacks felt connected through common struggle. Black hoped for a new system to be put in place where race wasn’t a barrier of entry for as many opportunities as it was during the time.

Leagues of blacks also just came back from fighting in a war in which they were fighting for a country who didn’t even see feasible giving them the rights which they were quite literally shedding blood for. Robert E. Lee and his followers also saw their defeat in the war as simply, “a loss due to a lack of manpower”. In this strain of thought, they thought that they had committed no wrongs in the eyes of the Lord and that everything should go back to the way it was before the war. So yes, a very multipronged approach to go about healing the nation from various minds during this time.

After we learned of the paradigms of the time, we learned of mothers who were in search of their children after their enslavement ended. I made a connection with a woman we talked about in our other class in the learning community in which we learned of the life of Harriet Jacobs. The connection that I almost immediately drew between Jacobs and the women of the documentary was the search as well as longing for familial connection post slavery. It had occurred to me when hearing stories that these were people who were separated from their families and who had possibly even accepted the fact that they may never even see them again.

I learned that true freedom in this time was measured by land, and how much of it you owned. This is where the Freedman’s Bureau comes into play. The Bureau was put in place to make sure that blacks had a fair opportunity post slavery. A lot of the capital that was given to the program came from land which was acquired from seizures during the war. The term “40 acres and a mule” comes from the Freedman’s Bureau. This was to make right for slavery and the disenfranchisement of blacks from any kind of economic opportunity. So, like many programs aimed to help those in need in this country with not much give back, if any, to the rich and powerful, it failed. The bureau was told by President Johnson to immediately put an end to its reign of rightdoing. So, many of the freed blacks simply refused to leave the land that was given to them as reparations. 

One quote that I heard in the documentary that really stuck with me was, “One can’t expect that racism just be discontinued due to the ending of slavery”. I think this is true, and to piggyback off of it, I’d take it even further and say that if anything it would just exacerbate the issue because now both sides of the spectrum have no structure to practice the racism within.
The confederacy, in many ways, got stronger AFTER the civil war. This is, in so many words, because people romanticized that “way of life”. 

I learned of the “Black Codes”. These were introduced as a way of making sure there was as little change from times of slavery to the era they were in. Blacks were arrested if they didn’t have a job. Some of these blacks were then forced into labor contracts which is quite literally just a legal version of slavery. White people would claim black children because, according to some of the white people, black parents weren’t suitable to take care of their children.

These whites would raise the children with their sole purpose being servants under them. Again, legal slavery. Nothing was really too much better on the legislative side of things either. Once congress reconvened, they allowed for confederate lawmakers to be a part of congress once again, big surprise there. Due to what was seen as a complete abandonment of legal support for blacks, whites began roaming the streets looking for blacks to kidnap, beat, or kill. Blacks were seen at this time as “beyond the law”.