Trial #2 Reaction (Plessy v. Ferguson)

 How can one say that “all men are created equal” when the Plessy v. Ferguson case still happened? If all men are created equal, why are they separate? Why aren’t they allowed to have the same rights as white people including the same rights to business? As stated in a student's presentation, “no matter the color of the skin, business is business.” Homer Plessy was a paying customer who never caused an actual problem. The train is the primary form of transportation and Homer Plessy had every right to share the same car as a white person. One of the largest takeaways I had from this mock trial was the point one student made about what the difference is between slaves and free black people. How can black people be in our kitchen, cooking and cleaning for us but not in the same train car? It is also important to note that a plantation couldn’t run without black people. A child has to spend so much time with the mammy and she even acts as a second mother to the child. The lives of blacks and whites were intertwined so how were slaves so wanted when slavery was a thing, but now white people can’t even stand to be within feet of them? When did this change? Homer Plessy was only 1/8th African American. The argument of him being “black” can't even apply to him because it doesn’t accurately describe him. This brings up the question of how can u even classify him if he’s not straight white or black? Where then does he fall? Another question that was brought up was, “since when did we give the states the role of interpreting the constitution?” The state was doing this regarding the 14th amendment when its the court’s job, not the states, but this was never brought up in Plessy v. Ferguson. What does the race of the person holding the dollar have to do with the transaction? Doesn’t the business owner want to make money either way? Just because the person holding the dollar is black, doesn’t mean the dollar itself has a race too. This way of thinking is hurting the overall economy which people are overlooking. The 14th amendment doesn’t designate race like black citizens or white citizens. We’re all God’s children which brings in a morality aspect.

The opposing side argued a couple of things. Louisiana had a law in place that whites and blacks were not supposed to be in the same place at the same time. Plessy was technically breaking the law and “social norms” by doing what he did. Louisiana claimed there was a “comfort” aspect to this as well and they were just trying to support society and social norms. The opposing side used examples from the Bible and talked about mixing things and how if it can exist through plants and animals then it should exist for mankind. Louisiana thought combining white and black people would just enhance problems on both sides which was their best defense. They also claimed this situation didn’t impact the 14th amendment because it doesn’t change the status of one’s citizenship. They claimed Plessy intentionally did this, knowing it would cause problems, therefore, he was in the wrong because of his ill intent and malice.