Mock Trial #2

-

 Plessy v. Ferguson

Pro-Segregation Argument


The case of Plessy v. Ferguson happened in 1896, about four years after the incident occurred in which a man (Plessy) with one eighth African American blood boarded a train car assigned to whites only. This was two years after the Separate Car Act of 1890 in the state of Louisiana, making this an offense punishable by law.

Plessy was arrested and hit with a fine of twenty five dollars, a charge which he challenged in the Supreme Court. Though the law was not on his side, he argued that his constitutional rights as a citizen had been violated. The following paragraphs in quotations display my script for a counter argument to Plessy in court:

- "As it has been made clear by my fellow participants, the defendant was in direct violation of the law regarding the separation between colored and white people. The black codes or Jim crow laws have been rooted within our country for over three decades since the abolition of slavery was fresh. To suggest that the defendants rights have been wrongfully tampered with is out of line.

It has become a way of life for blacks and whites to be separated in society, most especially for this very situation with Louisiana’s own passing of the separate car act back in 1890. To change our traditions and normal functions of life in such a way as the defendant sees fit would mean to tamper with our well-oiled machine of our current community. 


What the opposing side to this separate car law seems to misunderstand is the intention behind separating colored from white on the train. A simple way to look at it is to understand that both groups remain in equal significance and are separated from each other, rather than just being the colored people kept away from whites. 

This system does not tamper with our country’s values, let alone tradition, in any shape or form. Ultimately, the supreme court making a change would only go against what our country holds true to itself, rather than upholding some form of freedom where it is not required." -

Essentially, the claim being made by the prosecuting side is plain and simple. In the scenario on the train cars, both parties are being treated equally under the law. No side is being denied access to transportation, both sides are simply required to make use of separate units. The lack of legal backing within the current state of laws at the time provides the defendant with no proper protection against being charged with the initial fine.

https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/plessy-v-ferguson







Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Glory (1989) Reflection

-
Image
  The Story of the Union's First Black Regiment After starting this film, I was first met with a small biography meant to give the viewer an idea of the main character's situation. This main character is a man named Robert Gould Shaw, who's backstory leading up to his being named colonel and the main events of the film is displayed. This single character perspective does not, however, interfere with the value behind the film, and the focus on the colonel is mildly depleted later on to keep the message in a significant stance. The film is most directly making a point of sharing the story of the first colored men to ever fight for the union, as they were prohibited for decades prior. The team of African American troops takes on challenges with courage and prove themselves to be a worthy regiment among an entirely white union army. This leads up to them leading the charge on Fort Wagner, a Confederate establishment. The black regiment, alon...
Read more

Mock Trial #4

-
Image
  Bakke v. Regents of the University of California Mock Trial: Anti-Affirmative Action (Bakke's Argument) Bakke v. Regents of the University of California was a Supreme Court case which took place in 1978 regarding the topic of affirmative action and other measures of integration's constitutionality. Allan P. Bakke was denied from the University of California, leading him to initiate this case to go against affirmative action. The California State courts originally decided in 1977 that the affirmative action program was not acceptable, striking it down and admitting Bakke into the university, but things changed within the next year as the United States Supreme Court accepted the case after an overwhelming amount of public attention and protest. For my mock trial position arguing in favor of Bakke, I take the stance of claiming that the affirmative action program was racist or a form of reverse-discrimination: "People of the court, I am here today ...
Read more

EOTO #3

-
Image
 Supreme Court Paving the Way A large factor in the Brown v. Board of Education court decision was the path paved by three prior major court rulings. The first being Mendez v. Westminster. This case in particular was not a ruling by the Supreme Court as it was kept within the California federal courts by the school board officials. However, this 1947 court case (just under 8 years prior to Brown v. Board) decided that forcing students with Mexican ancestry into separate remedial schools was unconstitutional, mainly based upon the limitations from not being able to learn English while surrounded by it. Three years later, two anti-segregation Supreme Court cases were both successful on the same day. Sweatt v. Painter of 1950 was one of these two cases in which it was decided that a black man named Herman Sweatt had the right to attend the University of Texas Law School, as opposed to their law school created "equally" for people of color. The s...
Read more