Speaker 1: Happy Saturday. One of our episodes coming up this week
Speaker 1: includes a brief mention of the U. S. Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision Lessie Versus Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation as long
Speaker 1: as the segregated facilities are equal. We're bringing our episode
Speaker 1: on Lessie versus. Ferguson out of the archive to give
Speaker 1: a little bit more context to that. And when this
Speaker 1: episode originally came out, we followed up with two episodes
Speaker 1: on Brown v Board which overturned this ruling. We mentioned
Speaker 1: that those are coming at the top of the episode,
Speaker 1: but since we have other classics lined up over the
Speaker 1: next few weeks, just to be aware, we're not going
Speaker 1: to be replaying those this time around, so don't don't
Speaker 1: wait for those to show up in your feed, but
Speaker 1: they still are in the archive if folks are interested.
Speaker 1: This originally came out February Welcome to Stuff You Missed
Speaker 1: in History Class, a production of I Heart Radio. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the podcast. I'm Tracy V. Wilson and
Speaker 1: I'm Fry. We are going to spend a few episodes
Speaker 1: over the next few weeks talking about the two Supreme
Speaker 1: Court cases that uh sort of in a way book
Speaker 1: ended segregation in the United States, and plus E versus Ferguson,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was legal as long
Speaker 1: as the separate facilities were equal, And then many years later,
Speaker 1: Brown versus Board of Education overturned Plusy versus Ferguson and
Speaker 1: found that school segregation was unconstitutional. That decision was such
Speaker 1: a big deal and was so monumental and led to
Speaker 1: such a huge backlash that we're actually going to split
Speaker 1: that part of the conversation into two episodes later down
Speaker 1: the road. So those two facts about plus E versus
Speaker 1: Ferguson and Brown versus Board are things that most people
Speaker 1: who have studied the civil rights movement or United States
Speaker 1: history in any way are pretty familiar with. But I
Speaker 1: think for me and for you, both both of us
Speaker 1: and probably a lot of other people, the names of
Speaker 1: the cases and what they did is the beginning and
Speaker 1: the end of the conversation. Like, I had no idea
Speaker 1: what the story was behind, how these cases came to be,
Speaker 1: or any of that until I really got into researching
Speaker 1: them for these episodes. So that's why we're going to
Speaker 1: spend some time on this to talk about who the
Speaker 1: people were involved in Plessy versus Ferguson and Brown versus Board,
Speaker 1: and sort of the journey that these cases took to
Speaker 1: come to the Supreme Court in the first place. So
Speaker 1: the context that we're going to start with today is
Speaker 1: actually the U. S. Civil War. There are people who
Speaker 1: will argue that the Civil War was not fought over slavery,
Speaker 1: that it was about states rights or economics. And while
Speaker 1: states rights and economics were certainly involved, the primary rights
Speaker 1: in question were the right to own slaves and the
Speaker 1: right to travel freely with slaves into states where slavery
Speaker 1: was illegal. The primary economic factor at issue, you was
Speaker 1: that the Southern economy really relied on slavery in labor
Speaker 1: intensive industries such as cotton farming. You could also make
Speaker 1: the argument that the Civil War was fought over over
Speaker 1: neither of those two things, That it was fought because
Speaker 1: the North wanted to preserve the Union of the States,
Speaker 1: but the South wanted to secede from that union. And
Speaker 1: while strictly speaking this is also true, the big factor
Speaker 1: that was driving states to succede, which was specifically cited
Speaker 1: in the declarations of causes that were issued by Georgia, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, and Texas was slavery. This is all relevant
Speaker 1: because after the Union won the war in eighteen sixty five,
Speaker 1: slavery was abolished in the places where it was still legal.
Speaker 1: The federal government tried to rebuild the Southern infrastructure and
Speaker 1: encourage racial equality in a period that became known as
Speaker 1: the Reconstruction. Three amendments were added to the United States
Speaker 1: Constitution as part of this effort. The thirteenth Amendment formally
Speaker 1: abolished slavery, the fourteenth Amen meant granted citizenship to anyone
Speaker 1: who was born in the United States or nationalized, which
Speaker 1: included former slaves. And the fifteenth Amendment read, in part,
Speaker 1: the right of citizens of the United States to vote
Speaker 1: shall not be denied or abridged by the United States
Speaker 1: or by any State, on account of race, color, or
Speaker 1: previous condition of servitude. There was a lot more going
Speaker 1: on during Reconstruction. All of the twists and turns could
Speaker 1: easily be their own whole series of episodes. But to
Speaker 1: make an extremely long story short, the South overall resented
Speaker 1: the largely Northern pressure to free slaves and give them
Speaker 1: the right to vote. This was especially true as black
Speaker 1: officials were elected to office in the South and for
Speaker 1: a brief period of time, some progress was made towards
Speaker 1: rachel equality. As the Southern states were readmitted to the
Speaker 1: Union and the federal government had less influence on how
Speaker 1: those states were run, the states started passing laws that
Speaker 1: restricted African Americans right to vote by basically taking an
Speaker 1: advantage of the fact that most of them had been slaves,
Speaker 1: and during their time as slaves, they had not been
Speaker 1: allowed to learn to read or write, or to earn
Speaker 1: money or to hold property. So new laws required that
Speaker 1: in order to vote, people had to pass a literacy test,
Speaker 1: or pay a poll tax, or own property, something that
Speaker 1: in general white people in the South could do much
Speaker 1: more easily than black people could. Some of these tests
Speaker 1: were also virtually unpassable. But we're only required for black voters.
Speaker 1: But their right to vote restricted, Black Americans lost many
Speaker 1: of their prior gains in terms of representation in the government. Afterwards, states,
Speaker 1: both Southern states and border states enacted segregation laws that
Speaker 1: became known as Jim Crow laws, which separated black and
Speaker 1: white citizens in everything from hospitals to water fountains. Just
Speaker 1: the name Jim Crow was an insult. It came from
Speaker 1: a heavily stereotypical character in minstrel shows. These laws were
Speaker 1: enforced not just through the usual means of making arrests
Speaker 1: and bringing people to trial, but also through a social
Speaker 1: structure that insisted that black people be subservient to white people.
Speaker 1: The laws were also enforced more directly through intimidation and violence,
Speaker 1: up to and including murder. White supremacy organizations like the
Speaker 1: Ku Klux Klan really flourished, and violence against black citizens
Speaker 1: at the hand of white citizens became both commonplace and
Speaker 1: rarely prosecuted. Before we get into talking about a Jim
Speaker 1: Crow law and how it led to a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: ruling that legalized segregation, do you want to have a
Speaker 1: word from a sponsor? Sure stupendous? So to return to
Speaker 1: the story of Plessy versus Ferguson. One example of these
Speaker 1: Jim Crow laws was Louisiana's separate car law. And this
Speaker 1: law was to quote promote the comfort of passengers on
Speaker 1: their trains by providing quote equal at separate accommodations for
Speaker 1: the white and colored races. So anyone who boarded a
Speaker 1: car in Louisiana that was not meant for their race
Speaker 1: could be fined or jailed. Interracial couples were not exempt
Speaker 1: from the law, nor were black maids and servants who
Speaker 1: were traveling with white employers. Really, the only exception was
Speaker 1: nurses who were taking care of children of another race.
Speaker 1: This was signed into law on July tenth. Thanks to
Speaker 1: its sizable black population, including slaves, free slaves, and creoles
Speaker 1: of color, and to the Union's presence in New Orleans
Speaker 1: during much of the Civil War, New Orleans have become
Speaker 1: home to a large population of affluent, politically active black citizens.
Speaker 1: When the separate car Law was passed, activists in New
Speaker 1: Orleans set to work immediately trying to put together a
Speaker 1: plan to challenge it. On September one, eighteen, prominent black
Speaker 1: and Creole New Orleans citizens formed the Citizens Committee to
Speaker 1: test the constitutionality of the Separate Our Law, or the Committoyer.
Speaker 1: They got legal help from a white lawyer named Albion W. Tourge.
Speaker 1: He was from New York and had been an abolitionist.
Speaker 1: Tourge waived his fees and he promised to argue the
Speaker 1: case before the Supreme Court. Shouldn't make it all the
Speaker 1: way there, since Tourge was both very busy and also
Speaker 1: very far away from Louisiana. They also had the help
Speaker 1: of a local lawyer named James C. Walker. The committee
Speaker 1: settled on a strategy of civil disobedience. They would find
Speaker 1: someone to break the separate car law and get arrested,
Speaker 1: and then they would take the case through the court system.
Speaker 1: This they hoped would lead to overturning segregation, not just
Speaker 1: on Louisiana trains, but in all of the United States.
Speaker 1: Then they started looking for volunteers who the law would
Speaker 1: consider to be colored, but who looked white. Legal distinctions
Speaker 1: about who was considered to be part of which race
Speaker 1: really varied from state to state and through the years,
Speaker 1: and as a general rule, particularly in the South, the
Speaker 1: law required smaller and small our amounts of African American
Speaker 1: ancestry to be considered colored, and eventually this came down
Speaker 1: to the one drop rule, meaning that in a lot
Speaker 1: of places, if a person had one drop of African blood,
Speaker 1: that person was considered to be black. Candidates had to
Speaker 1: be law abiding citizens with good reputations, people who would
Speaker 1: not be dismissed as disreputable, and who had nothing in
Speaker 1: their background that could be that could become an easy
Speaker 1: excuse for not taking their case seriously. Their first attempt
Speaker 1: to break the separate car law was made by a
Speaker 1: man named Daniel did Dunes, and he was a musician.
Speaker 1: He was also the son of one of the members
Speaker 1: of the committee, and he was one eighth black. He
Speaker 1: boarded the first class car of a train on February
Speaker 1: and then he told the conductor that he was colored.
Speaker 1: He was removed from the train and arrested, but before
Speaker 1: the case could go to trial, the charges against him
Speaker 1: were dismissed because the state Supreme Court ruled in a
Speaker 1: different case that state segregation laws couldn't apply to interstate travel.
Speaker 1: Day Dune's tickets had been to Mobile, Alabama, so per
Speaker 1: the Louisiana Supreme Court, that ride was regulated by federal
Speaker 1: law and not state law. The committee had actually chosen
Speaker 1: an interstate ticket on purpose, because they were hoping to
Speaker 1: draw on interstate commerce commerce laws in the case. The
Speaker 1: committee tried again, and this time the man breaking the
Speaker 1: law was Homer Plessy, a thirty year old shoemaker. He
Speaker 1: was also one eighth African American. One of his great
Speaker 1: grandmothers had been black, and he had skin light enough
Speaker 1: that he would not be questioned boarding the car. He
Speaker 1: bought his first class ticket to Covington, Louisiana on the
Speaker 1: East Louisiana Railroad, so that the whole trip would take
Speaker 1: place within the borders of the state. Nobody raised any
Speaker 1: questions when plus He boarded the first class car, and
Speaker 1: different accounts vary and exactly how the conductor came to
Speaker 1: know that he was legally a colored man and in
Speaker 1: the wrong place, and some of the versions Plus he
Speaker 1: just told him, and in others the conductor asked because
Speaker 1: he knew that the Committee was sending someone to test
Speaker 1: the segregation law that day, and in others the conductor
Speaker 1: asked everyone in the car because it was part of
Speaker 1: his job to confirm the race of all passengers and
Speaker 1: that everyone was in the correct car on the train.
Speaker 1: Regardless of how it played out, and this information came
Speaker 1: to light, the train's conductor, J. J. Dowling asked Homer
Speaker 1: Plessy to leave the train after learning his race, and
Speaker 1: even though the law designated separate but equal cars, there
Speaker 1: was not actually a car for black passengers on the
Speaker 1: train that day. Plus he refused, he was arrested by
Speaker 1: a private detective hired by the committee and jailed. Members
Speaker 1: of the Citizens Committee pulled their money to bail Plusy
Speaker 1: out Plessy's trial was set for October thirteenth, eight two.
Speaker 1: James Walker, who we mentioned earlier, argued that his arrest
Speaker 1: violated the thirteenth and fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Previous
Speaker 1: court rulings had expanded on the interpretation of the thirteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment not just to include literal slavery, but also quote
Speaker 1: badges of slavery and service ude, which is how an
Speaker 1: amendment that was set up to abolish slavery was being
Speaker 1: applied to the matter of being segregated on a train.
Speaker 1: But Lionel Adams, the attorney for the prosecution, argued that
Speaker 1: the Separate Car Act reduced racial tension and so it
Speaker 1: was actually good for the state. He also argued that
Speaker 1: because the separate cars were equal, it was not discriminatory
Speaker 1: to separate people into them by their race, although we're
Speaker 1: not clear on how that applied given that there was
Speaker 1: reportedly no actual car for black passengers on that particular train.
Speaker 1: Judge John H. Ferguson ruled in favor of the prosecution
Speaker 1: on November eighteen, and the next step in the case
Speaker 1: was the appeal. But again, we're gonna pause for a
Speaker 1: second for a word from a sponsor before we dig
Speaker 1: into all of that juicy material. So let's let's go
Speaker 1: back to the story, which at this point is going
Speaker 1: to go to the Supreme Court. Plus, his case went
Speaker 1: to the Louisiana Supreme Court first, which heard it on
Speaker 1: November of that year. The arguments were essentially the same
Speaker 1: as what had been argued in the court before, and
Speaker 1: in what came as a surprise to no one, the
Speaker 1: court ruled that the law was not discriminatory because it
Speaker 1: applied equally to everyone. It would actually be four years
Speaker 1: before the case would get to the U. S. Supreme Corps, and,
Speaker 1: as he had promised when originally agreeing to work with
Speaker 1: the Citizens Committee, Albion Tourge planned to argue the case
Speaker 1: before the Supreme Court rather than appealing immediately. He actually
Speaker 1: decided to take some time to try to raise funds
Speaker 1: for the case and work out his strategy. In addition
Speaker 1: to that, he and the committee were also hoping that
Speaker 1: by delaying a little bit, they would find themselves before
Speaker 1: a court that would see their case more favorably. Based
Speaker 1: on decisions that the court had already issued, Justices eight
Speaker 1: two were really not very likely to find that the
Speaker 1: separate car law was unconstitutional. The President was just not
Speaker 1: running in favor of this case. So the committee crossed
Speaker 1: their fingers that some of the justices would be replaced
Speaker 1: before they submitted their own case, and in eight two
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices died and new appointees took their place. However,
Speaker 1: this did not look much better for Plessy in the
Speaker 1: Citizens Committee than the previous court had. One of the
Speaker 1: new justices was a former Confederate soldier and the other
Speaker 1: had a reputation for being quite conservative. The new court
Speaker 1: also set an immediate precedent of upholding other Jim Crow laws. Plus,
Speaker 1: in just those couple of years, the overall racial climate
Speaker 1: in the United States had gotten worse instead of better. So,
Speaker 1: in spite of the fact that things seemed to be
Speaker 1: kind of running against them towards a submitted the case,
Speaker 1: which he prepared along with Walker and Samuel F. Phillips,
Speaker 1: and he submitted it four review towards the end of eighteen.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court heard the case, which was now known
Speaker 1: as plus E versus Ferguson, in eight nine six. In
Speaker 1: the written briefs and oral arguments, Tourge and team argued
Speaker 1: that the separate car law was unconstitutional, in several ways,
Speaker 1: including the following. This is very much an abridged list,
Speaker 1: but first up, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment from several
Speaker 1: different angles by giving white citizens and colored citizens different
Speaker 1: rights and protections under the law. Second, while proponents of
Speaker 1: the law claimed it was for the comfort of both
Speaker 1: black and white passengers, Tourge argued that it was really
Speaker 1: for the comfort of white passengers at the expense of
Speaker 1: black passengers, and therefore discriminatory. Second, while proponents of the
Speaker 1: law claimed that it was for the comfort of both
Speaker 1: black and white passengers, Tourge argued that it was really
Speaker 1: for the comfort of white passengers at the expense of
Speaker 1: black passengers, and therefore discriminatory. He also argued that the
Speaker 1: law violated the fourteenth of then meants due process clause
Speaker 1: by giving train conductors the power of law enforcement while
Speaker 1: giving train passengers no legal recourse about decisions the conductors made.
Speaker 1: And last that it created conditions of subjection and inferiority,
Speaker 1: which previous court decisions had interpreted to be in violation
Speaker 1: of the Thirteenth Amendment. Representing Louisiana's side was Alexander Peter Morse,
Speaker 1: whose legal specialty was federal appeals He argued that the
Speaker 1: separate car law was designed to prevent problems and serve
Speaker 1: the common good, so, rather than making African American passengers
Speaker 1: second class citizens, according to him, it actually protected them
Speaker 1: from harassment and discrimination by white passengers. He also noted
Speaker 1: several prior cases in which the Supreme Court had had
Speaker 1: upheld States rights in the matter of segregation, and he
Speaker 1: said that the rights at issue in the separate car
Speaker 1: law were not civil rights at all. They were social
Speaker 1: rights which are not constitutionally protected. The Supreme Court announced
Speaker 1: its decision on May eighteenth. Of eight, Justice David J.
Speaker 1: Brewer excused himself from participating because his daughter had just died,
Speaker 1: and the remaining eight judges upheld the constitutionality of the
Speaker 1: separate car law in a seven to one ruling. Henry
Speaker 1: Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion, which dismissed the idea
Speaker 1: that the separate car law violated the Thirteenth Amendment entirely.
Speaker 1: He also cited several cases in which the Court had
Speaker 1: upheld States rights to segregate, and he dismissed the idea
Speaker 1: that providing separate facilities was inherently discriminatory. This is the thing,
Speaker 1: he wrote on that point, we consider the underlying fallacy
Speaker 1: of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that
Speaker 1: the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored
Speaker 1: race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so,
Speaker 1: it is not by reason of anything found in the Act,
Speaker 1: but solely because the colored race chooses to put that
Speaker 1: construct and upon it. So it goes on to say
Speaker 1: that if quote, the colored race became the majority in
Speaker 1: the state legislature and enacted the same law, that white
Speaker 1: people would not think themselves inferior because of it. This
Speaker 1: was the point where I had to stop reading Supreme
Speaker 1: Court rulings and take a little break. That's probably for
Speaker 1: the best in terms of your nual stability. There's a
Speaker 1: lot that's really offensive in in the whole majority opinion,
Speaker 1: and and the part where it's like this, you guys
Speaker 1: are making a big deal out of it. This is
Speaker 1: on you, not on us. That was the part that
Speaker 1: made me like, uh, yes, I feel like they haven't
Speaker 1: changed very much, because this feels like the stop playing
Speaker 1: the race card of the late nineteenth century. So the
Speaker 1: sole dissenter and all of this was John Marshall Harlan
Speaker 1: who went against the majority with so much vigor that
Speaker 1: he became known as the Great Dissenter. His dissent accurately
Speaker 1: predicted what was going to happen next, which was the
Speaker 1: States were going to you. Is this ruling as a
Speaker 1: justification to enact a whole lot more segregation laws, uh,
Speaker 1: and to be more blatantly districted, discriminatory, feeling like they
Speaker 1: had the backing of the Supreme Court in doing so.
Speaker 1: One of his statements goes like this quote, In my opinion,
Speaker 1: the judgment this day rendered will in time proved to
Speaker 1: be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this
Speaker 1: tribunal in the dread Scott case. So if you're not
Speaker 1: familiar with that one, that's dread Scott versus Sanford, when
Speaker 1: dread Scott, who was a slave, sued for his freedom,
Speaker 1: and the court decided that anyone with African ancestry, whether
Speaker 1: they were a slave or free, was not intended to
Speaker 1: be a citizen of the United States and therefore was
Speaker 1: not entitled to bring such a suit in federal court.
Speaker 1: The court also ruled that the federal government couldn't prohibit
Speaker 1: slavery in territory that it had acquired after the United
Speaker 1: States was founded. Harlan's dissent also argues strenuously against the
Speaker 1: idea that segregation was good for race relations. To quote
Speaker 1: s Exteam, millions of whites are in no danger from
Speaker 1: the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The destinies
Speaker 1: of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together,
Speaker 1: and the interests of both require that the common government
Speaker 1: of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate
Speaker 1: to be planted under the sanction of law. What can
Speaker 1: more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and
Speaker 1: perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races than state enactments,
Speaker 1: which in fact proceed on the ground that colored citizens
Speaker 1: are so far inferior and degraded that they cannot be
Speaker 1: allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens. That,
Speaker 1: as all will admit, is the real meaning of such
Speaker 1: legislation as was enacted in Louisiana. Yeah, his whole tone
Speaker 1: is basically, Uh, it's completely obvious to everyone that the
Speaker 1: intent here is to subjugate an entire race of people,
Speaker 1: and upholding this law is going to make it so
Speaker 1: much worse. Today, us versus Ferguson is a pretty infamous
Speaker 1: and notorious Supreme Court case, but at the time it
Speaker 1: really did not make a lot of big news. The
Speaker 1: reaction of a lot of the media and of the
Speaker 1: majority as a whole was sort of well obviously um. Afterward, though,
Speaker 1: states really did begin passing more and more segregation laws,
Speaker 1: and in spite of the ruling being based on the
Speaker 1: idea that things were separate but equal, a lot of
Speaker 1: these separate facilities were not equal at all. They were
Speaker 1: often massively and deliberately inferior that from the facilities for
Speaker 1: white people, and a lot of people interpreted this ruling
Speaker 1: to mean that all discrimination and everything was legal, not
Speaker 1: just the separation of races into two separate but supposedly
Speaker 1: equal facilities. And while most of these laws were passed
Speaker 1: in the South, this was not exclusively a Southern phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Of the segregation laws in the United States were in
Speaker 1: the North, Midwest, and the West. And it also was
Speaker 1: not just about segregating African Americans. In states with sizable
Speaker 1: population of Asians, Mexicans, and Native Americans, for example, these
Speaker 1: populations were segregated from the white population as well. Since
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court had upheld the previous verdict. Homer Plessi
Speaker 1: then appeared before Judge Ferguson in Louisiana one more time
Speaker 1: on January eleven. This was to plead guilty and to
Speaker 1: pay his fine for violating the separate car law. He
Speaker 1: spent the rest of his life working as a laborer
Speaker 1: and then a clerk, and then eventually he became an
Speaker 1: insurance salesman for an African American owned insurance company. Homer
Speaker 1: Plessi died on March one. It would be almost sixty
Speaker 1: years before this decision was overturned, and we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about that, uh in another episode, and then in
Speaker 1: another episode after that, we're going to talk about what
Speaker 1: happened after it was overturned. Thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us on this Saturday. Since this episode is out of
Speaker 1: the archive, if you heard an email address or a
Speaker 1: Facebook U r L or something similar over the course
Speaker 1: of the show, that could be obsolete now. Our current
Speaker 1: email address is History Podcast at I heart radio dot com.
Speaker 1: Our old health stuff works email address no longer works,
Speaker 1: and you can find us all over social media at
Speaker 1: missed in History, and you can subscribe to our show
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, Google podcasts. The i heart Radio app
Speaker 1: and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Stuff you missed
Speaker 1: in History Class is a production of I heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from I heart Radio, visit the iHeart
Speaker 1: Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
Speaker 1: favorite shows.