Plessy V. Ferguson Mock Trial Reax

This is a student giving an argument for one side of the case. 

The case of Plessy v. Ferguson was one of the most influential cases in the late 1800s for the future of racial segregation at the time.

This isn't to say it caused any betterment of racism and segregation, as it actually did quite the opposite.

This is a headshot of Homer Plessy.

The case started when a man named Homer Plessy, a black man of very light complexion, bought a first-class train ticket. He was arrested because of this and later charged under the Separate Car Act, which was just passed in 1890 in Louisiana, two years before this event, which occurred in New Orleans on June 7th, 1892.

An important question that was presented by the defense team for Homer Plessy was, "Does the Separate Car Act violate Homer Plessy's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically, the Equal Protection Clause?" 

He was not drunk, nor violent, nor disorderly, so there should not have been any reason to charge him with a crime. He simply bought a ticket with his own money and then redeemed that ticket for a first-class train seat.

Another good argument that the defense of Plessy presented in the mock trial against the Separate Car Act is that it was harmful to the economy. It forced businesses to divide their resources; there could be valuable seats left unfilled, and segregation harms workers and consumers; racial injustice makes people not be able to go to work, therefore losing businesses money. 

From this evidence, it can be deduced that since every citizen presents and holds economic potential, equality could lead to more workers and businesses, as well as greater productivity.

The opposite side of this argument is presented just as well by the team on the side of Ferguson. A very important factor they brought up from a moral standpoint is that what is considered an insult comes directly from the interpretation of the individual; however, in this situation, the conductor only directs people to colored or white cars; there is no prejudice involved whatsoever.

This is a headshot of Judge John Howard Ferguson.

They also made various arguments regarding how these types of things are done to prevent public conflict, and that no society has ever existed without some sort of social organization. These kinds of separate institutions have existed for decades. They end their argument by mentioning that Louisiana had a right to pass this law, and that even though the Fourteenth Amendment does say everyone gets equal treatment, it also says they can sit in separate cars.

As mentioned previously, this case was very influential in the development of discrimination as the world developed into the 1900's. Both of these arguments posed crucial facts; however, we know that in any situation, the act of splitting a people group up from another, just because of the color of their skin, does and always will have a very immoral undertone.