Plessy v Ferguson mock trial reaction

 

This 1977 political cartoon, "In 1892, we were here...," was published in a weekly series in the New Orleans States-Item newspaper. John Wilds wrote the columns, while John Churchill Chase created accompanying cartoon illustrations.

Plessy’s team

A cartoon depicting
"Separate but equal"
law as unfair and unequal

Plessy’s lawyers argued that the promise of equality has not been fulfilled. They said separating passengers by race creates discrimination, and that “separate but equal” does not give African Americans equality. They also argued that our constitution is colorblind and that religion stands against racism. They pointed to “all men are created equal” and said our nation has not lived up to that promise, and that Americans have abandoned the practices that represent liberty and justice.

I thought their economic argument was the most interesting. They said segregation is harmful to the economy because it limits economic opportunity and adds unnecessary costs when passengers are separated by race. Equal access to travel allows for more opportunity, which means a greater economy and more employment. 

Ferguson’s team

Ferguson’s team argued that the law does not forbid Plessy from having equal travel and accommodations. They said Louisiana did not invent separation, since it was already practiced in schools and public places, and Congress has maintained separate schools. In their view, the law treats both races alike because both have different cars, and it exists for equality but not race mixing. They described the conductor as someone who does not determine a man’s worth and only guides passengers to the right spot. 

They also argued that the amendments did not command mingling of the races and do not reach private social distinctions. Throughout civilization, communities have organized themselves around individuality, culture and customs, and the United States is no exception. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws, but they said history does not show it was meant to eliminate segregation. They added that separate but equal does not eliminate voting rights.

My takeaway

Both teams relied on the same amendment and reached opposite conclusions. Ferguson’s team leaned on history and tradition, while Plessy’s team leaned on the nation’s own promises of equality. Seeing both arguments back to back showed me how “equal” can be defined in a way that sounds fair while still allowing discrimination.

Ai Disclosure: I used Claude. AI in a grammar correction and reformatting type of way for my blog post. I specifically asked Claude to not use any sources but my notes to reformat itself into a blog post around 300~400 words. The images and links embedded in them were done entirely by me, while Claude.AI is responsible for reformatting/grammar.