sundays at noon eastern. -span radio on audio now, call 202-626-8888, long distance or phone charges may apply. >> each week, american history tv sits in on a lecture with one of the nation's college or festers. you can watch the lecture every saturday evening at that college professors. you can watch the lecture every saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. and midnight. this week bowie state university , professor tamara brown teaches a class on the american concept of race and how that factored into the supreme court's 1896 plessy v. ferguson decision. this is about an hour and 15 minutes. >> ok, so today we are going to start out with hopefully some understanding about what race

is. this is a standard webster's dictionary definition. of human beings distinguished by hair color, skin color, etc. -- traditionally the categorizations are caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. [laughter] typically when people talk about race, they say, well, it is a biological determinant or it is some kind of scientific construct or something like that. ok? genetically speaking -- and i am not a geneticist or a biologist or anything else like that -- but typically, you have ary,acteristics that can ver

even between and amongst people of a race, just as it varies between different races. that is why people say things like that. acause, you know, that is not real way to classify people and this type of stuff, ok? that being said, the idea of race has existed for centuries. and what happens in this we are talkingod about today in the 1800s is you have scientists who are performing what we will call anddoscientific experiments testing theories -- what is pseudoscientific? nextll talk about this class, too. we will talk about social darwinism. pseudoscientific. ms. wilson? to do with the mind? >> ok, yes. what is pseudo?

we have the scientific part. what is pseudo-? does it mean true or does it mean faults? -- flase? -- false? >> false. >> yes. means falsee science, basically. people were trying to determine whether or not there was any impurity --or inferiority within racial rankings. usually they had anglo dissent at top and people of -- anglo and african on bottom. usually when like that. yes? >> [indiscernible]

what is a mongoloid? >> that is age and. -- asian. >> [laughter] >> ok. ok. even though we are talking about the 1800s, these ideas were not really rule. thomas jefferson was talking slaveobserving his own population and the differences he thought about with his own enslaved population and others around him, and he writes these on the state of virginia, ok? he does that even a century prior to what we are talking about here. ok. we have some concept of race . wherever youers

are in the world. we have latin america and the caribbean up there. people in latin america and the caribbean in particular, they have a more fluid concept of race than what we will have in the united states of america, ok? do theirenglish exploration, they are very ethnocentric. when the french are out there and the spanish and the dutch, and in my part one class, we learned all about this. but when , men areple come typically coming out first to settle the area. and they're going to have relations with whatever female group is there, ok? a in this case we will have

mixture of native americans, africans, and europeans. so, with the spanish and the ,rench and the dutch, they have they're like, ok, this is going to happen. we might not want it to happen, so it is going to happen anyway. ok, there it is. the english were like, ok, this might happen. but we do not want it to happen. we will do everything we can to stop it from happening. did it happen? yes, of course it did. but the idea behind act is the background of the various group is going to shape their perception of race. latin america, they could not deny the racial mixture existence. some people even call it a cosmic rays. -- cosmic race. it is here. we can't deny it. instead of completely denigrating it, we will

celebrate it. i have to say that tongue-in-cheek. it does not mean we are all sitting there singing kumbaya. theyt is the idea of what promote. mulattothe new lotto -- escape hatch. this is the caribbean. anyone's family from the islands? some hands up. more -- i have this would say fluid, but i do not know if that is the word i want to use. this more fluid idea of race. the closer one got to the european elements, the header that person had it in society. that is what the mulatto escape hatches. what is a mulatto? ms. martinez? african andho is

european. >> a mixture of european and african. she is correct. a mixture of european and african. ok, for those mixed-race people, they tended, even in historical today, to have more opportunities. , now since a lot of people in line america, again, had this ideal where, we are like a there is noand denying it, at the same time we will be talking about today, the the thing that they will do to lighten their population -- it is actually called whitening -- they will promote immigration. immigration from europe, so those immigrants, and mix with the african elements of the population to lighten and

brighten the population and make it more white. that is one way they dealt with now i say all that because even today you see the affect that this had on many of these countries. argentina is a good example. argentina, to go to you would say, oh, we never had an african element here. which is not true. they did have an african element. but they were so successful with whitening, it was nearly wiped out by the turn of the 20th century. i had a colleague at a former school where i used to work, and she went on a tango tour of argentina. she was african-american. she left and learned about the different races and ethnicities and things like that. they said, well, we had no

african element. and i said, wait a minute, yes, they did. that was very common. i had another friend who went to argentina and said the same thing. ok? i don't know. maybe they wiped it out of the history books as well. that is a very good example of how that happens. but even when -- even in brazil -- let me ask. what do we know about brazil? ok, i see your hand up first. >> they spoke were tds. >> portuguese. what about the racial element? anything about the racial element? do any of you all want to go to carnival? also had an african element. >> a huge african element. she is correct. they had a huge african element. is second to nigeria. nigeria is the most populous

african country and brazil is second to nigeria in the number of people of african descent. that is because mozilla had a large portion of the transatlantic slave trade, a large portion of those individuals came to brazil. likesn brazil, who again, to look at itself as this type of rachel democracy, there is a difference between those of color and those who are more european are more favored and those who were more african or not. and there are various gradations from white to black that are still very prevalent today. ok. ok. -- in yoursaid that constant struggle book, i know books with you.

because i know you bring them to every class. we're going to look at the state law in reference to color. this is dated from 1825 until 1927. inis not that they stop 1927. it was because the supreme court's case in 1927 will expand these definitions of race and color. and we're going to get there, but it will be after midterms. i will just give you that hint. so, alabama. "the term negro refers to a mulatto -- arkansas -- a person of the negro race as any person who has in his or her veins any negro blood whatever.

ok. georgia. all negroes, mulattos, and mestizos -- what is it a misty mestizo? a mixture. you get that. you have your hand up. >> caucasian and mexican. >> use a mexican -- but wouldn't it be -- it becomes mexican win mexico becomes a country. it would be european and usually native american, ok? all right then. ok. mestizos andattos, their descendents having any discernible trace of african, is the attic, or west indian blood in their veins shall be known in

this state as persons of color. ok? georgia, the term white person shall include only persons of the white or caucasian race who have no eitherinable trace of negro, african, west indian, indian, mongolian, japanese, or chinese blood in their veins. whoseson, any of ancestors have been duly registered with the state board of vital statistics as a person of color shall be deemed you be a whiteperson. -- person. all right event. louisiana. louisiana defines a colored s with anyall person mixture of negro blood. good old mississippi. mississippi -- the word white

under section 207 means a member of the caucasian race and the word colored includes not only negroes, but persons of mixed blood having any appreciable amount of negro blood. moving on. tennessee. the word negro includes mulattos mestizos, and their descendents having any african blood in their veins. shall be known as persons of color. ok. ok. and then virginia has an interesting one. because they make a distinction living on native american reservations as well. but i read to you some of the synopses of these laws that had to do with race and color. what do we get from them? we got something from them.

they should be a little confusing. what do you take from them? ms. martinez. say the sameof thing about what a negro was, a colored person was, but they define in different ways. --ever, a white person >> the berbers? >> yeah. >> the berbers are interesting, too. ms. martinez is on the right track. she is saying these laws are trying to define what a person of african descent is, what a person of european dissent is, and they certainly -- european is, and they certainly -- they say any appreciable amount, ascertainable amount of african blood are not what? are not white. are not white.

the state laws vary, what the united states had -- sorry, i am not bringing that into contemporary times, because we do think differently about differently. last 30 to 35he years or so. so, what does the united states have that was different from its neighbors to the south -- we had what was called the one drop theory. has anyone ever heard that term? do you all know what it meant? even one 32nd percentage black -- >> are you a math major? >> no. [laughter] putting it back to great, great ancestors. the oney the idea with

drop theory -- you were those theyand they were -- differed. where they were the same basically, it said if you had what? any appreciable, ascertainable amount whatsoever african blood you are considered black, whether you are mestizo, mulatto , whatever. and colored people included what? occasion people -- asian people. ms. easley is correct. with the one drop theory, if you had one drop of lifeblood, you were black. ok. blackyou had one drop of blood, you were black. ok. we will have color consciousness in the black community, but in the larger society, that one drop made you black in this country. ok.

so that is what i said. so early segregation times. lecturened this in the about the supreme court and how it will turn its act on the rights of african-americans. i will talk about that here so we can get a sense and a feel of what is happening before plessy. southernhe sense that segregation will be sanctioned by law as the century changes because of plessy versus ferguson. and this will legalize processes that already existed. southernr to this, states had typically segregated their school systems. we talked about that. they had done this either by law or by constitutional guarantee.

so, in those state constitutions. by 1867, you had arkansas and north carolina recognizing segregated schools. 1870.a and virginia texas, 1873. this becomes more codified. when i say more codified, i mean what? in their court of law. mississippi, 1876 as well. sometimes they will strengthen the is on what they might have as local law. they will strengthen by adding to their constitution later ron, which north carolina will do and mississippi will do as well. what?already had this system of segregation that was coming about after the end of slavery, ok? we remember after all this information after reconstruction, it does not change what people think. and it does not promote social social equity.

it does not make people equal in their social status. ok. these customs are becoming more pronounced, you don't have african-americans just sitting back and saying, ok, we're going to take his treatment. the schoolbout system and we said number one, african-americans preferred black teachers. they were not so concerned not being able to go to an integrated school because they wanted what? any type of school. because they linked education with freedom. that does not mean that they did not fight against these injustices. they did. one area where they did that would be the streetcars. during reconstruction, you will have several cities attempting

to segregate regards. these -- segregate streetcars. the streetcars would be equivalent to what? you're --uses, but you're metro. think about it as above ground metro. attempt to get these laws changed and they were successful. and if we remember the lecture, and if you have not watched it, please do, because you need this information. the lecture on these civil rights holes that were passed. 1875pecifically the one in . -- the lecture on the civil rights bills that were passed. this will attempt to guard against infringements and public accommodations. going down to the mall and people said, ok, people who wear blue shirts, you can't come in here, all right? and

because you had a blue shirt on that day, you could not comment. they fought against these things. where people could enjoy things they could do in public. go to a restaurant, go to a movie, get on the bus. this type of thing. all right? ok. you see this picture here and ? it does not take place in the south. it takes place in the north. philadelphia. have ath does not monopoly on racism or discrimination. so, the north, although it will the precursor to segregation laws even prior to the civil war, the north will practice segregation by custom, when the south will legally implement it through law. this is in

philadelphia. this was prior to the civil war. this etching here. ok. we talked about schools, but also some of the other first segregation laws will deal with railroad cars. not the streetcars in this instance, but actual passenger trains. of let me give you a couple first. i know you like those. 1889, black baptist from or just from savanna train tickets. they were met by an angry white mob that threatened to beat them. these are not my words. so a white man waved a pistol in a black woman's face and she screamed in fear. he then screamed in her face.

heffer, if you do not get out of here i will blow off your g.d. face." mary pierce -- she will be very important. thefather will be one of first black millionaires. she will be traveling in the coach. she will be asked to move. she will refuse and will threaten the conductor by saying, my father will do this to this railroad. ok? now the tennessee legislature onl end for segregation their railroad cars as early as 1881 and florida will pass a similar law in 1887. . just gave you two examples now this is -- well, not exactly. i'm sorry.

out of the railroads feel about this? generally they did not support desegregation laws. they did not support the segregation laws because they were expensive to enforce. sometimes the only color that matters is green. ok? it was expensive to equip your train with a separate car separate section or whatever specifically for african-americans. yes? >> [indiscernible] the one dropped.. you said a white person, if they had one drop of lack love in them, they would be considered african-american. -- black blood in them, they would be considered african-american. but you said the slaveowners -- they would impregnate the black women slaves -- >> they would be black. the laws would pertain to them and they would have to use the colored bathrooms and everything. what if some of the white people

-- i know one little boy who has a black dad and a white mom, and he has as fair skin as me. he looks like. that thought. hold that thought. that is the crux of the case. hold that thought. hold that thought. a regular white person you did not know -- >> we will get to that. you are always anticipating. that's good. at a good observation. you might say, ok. these people bought first-class tickets and they had to sit in a second-class car. i would be upset with that. why would you be upset? >> that you did not get to sit in that first-class section. >> you paid money. you do not want to sit in the second-class section when you paid money for the first-class ticket. there was a particular reason

also for women, too. even when blacks did pay -- to a have that somewhere? even when they did pay for the first-class ticket, they had to sit in the second-class horrors was the segregation laws were passed. the second-class cars, sometimes they were the smoking cars. sometimes they were the cars that were right behind the engine. so, let's say you're traveling and you have a nice white suit on and you are stopping on that engine and you have such an and smoke blowing. and your white suit is what? a dingy shade of gray. women traveling alone, they would pay for the ladies car or up there was not anything designated like that, at least the first-class accommodation. they did that, number one, to

protect their own virtue. i talked about the smoking car. that would be where people would be smoking, you know a pipe or cigar or whatever. they would also be chewing tobacco in the car. tobacco -- i do not want to offend anybody who chews tobacco, i'm sorry. but i feel that that is just one of the grossest acts known to man and woman, ok? if you were sitting in that car and you are chewing tobacco, where would you spend it -- spit it? on the floor. for females traveling alone, it was unsafe because what? they could have been assaulted. especially traveling in mixed company like that. plus, there is gingivitis if you chew tobacco. but -- you just would not have done that. you would not have done that. and for your safety, you would have traveled in the first-class car or the ladies car.

-- thing goodness. -- thank goodness. we will learn more about her --er we take our mid-turn midterm because she will be important to our discussions on lynching in her anti-lynching campaign and crusade. in 1884, she will be traveling in the ladies coach of the chesapeake and ohio railroad car. the conductor will ask her to get up and move to the jim crow car. protest, he will up kicking her off the train. the other people on the train will cheer she is being removed from the train, but she will also i can. also bite- she will

him. she will bite his hand. then she will get off the train and she will sue. she will win her case initially. initially she won a hundred dollars, but it would be overturned on appeal. this is just illustrative of number one, what people went through on these railroad trains, and number two, the situation certain females went through. we saw the example of ida b. before ofthe example mary church. and how they did not want to passively stand eye. they fought against it. mary church saying, i am going to telegraph my father and he will get you all. and then with ida b. wells actually suing. ok. we listed all of those things. we are coming to our game

show for the day. whoo! we love this kind of stuff. yay! >> whoo! >> thank you. thank you. we will play our little game. i have these pictures. you will tell me what race or ethnicity you think these people are. as creative ast you want. some people, you know, give me all sort of things and i am surprised how close they come. [laughter] you may.eate however ok, these people -- what you think they are? >> [indiscernible] >> she works in the library of photo arcades. so. are we consistent on this one. -- on this one?

>> [indiscernible] >> it is a game. thank you much. >> [indiscernible] several we have -- what we have? sock, native american, misty ?- misty says -- mestizo >> black? >> are you sure? all right. tell you in this picture, that is an outhouse, if you have never seen one. >> definitely native. .> mixed, mulatto hispanic?at? latino?

>> he is 1/8 probably. >> huh? >> he looks 1/8. >> [indiscernible] >> the nose, mr. cranston? >> [indiscernible] >> what about her? european? [laughter] country?ific >> london? hispanic? >> she is black. >> the mother. look at her nose. she is black. >> sticking to that nose. >> she is jewish. echor nose -- he is jewish

-- jewish? >> she is white. >> white. >> she has got to be wide. >> i think she is jewish. you all will be happy to know you just categorized my family member. ok, this is my grandmother. she is black. aunt, her great sister. also black. my mom's first cousins. lack am a black. black.ck, >> oh, my lord. >> oh, my lord. my off, my grandfather, my great-grandfather. born into slavery. they called him back.

don't ask me why they call them. pat. >> pat? >> that is a south carolina thing. don't try to understand it. this is my mom's favorite cousin edison. twose are hurt 2 -- her aunts. this is the same person. my mother and my uncle. i will show you a contemporary picture though. aren't they cute? that is my grandmother and my great aunt. --se two are that is my grandmother. and that is -- those of the two in the other picture. you said native american. but you are not too far off

.ecause -- come on back so, she is that drupal mixture --european-native american that drupal mixture of european, native american, and african. she could speak cherokee. she did not teach her children to speak cherokee because she thought they were oppressed and off because of that one drop theory. she was not going to oppress them more because they were part cherokee. he had twoandfather, wives. not at the same time. the first set of children he had. he had a brother and a sister. they differ in complexion because since he was born into slavery, his father was a plantation owner, and there's was not. his first set of children, these

are some of them. ok? in fact, ms. martinez was right because she was looking at the lighting and stuff like that. their complexions are different than what is depicted in this particular picture. >> how many children did he have? >> i believe there were eight in the first set. therandmother belongs to second set. his first wife died, and then he married my great grandmother. are -- they're little brewed right here. and that is an outhouse in case you never saw one. ok. these are what these lovely little cherubs grew up to look like. i will tell you something about my cousin eugene and my cousin

neil in a second, too. that is my uncle and mom. , in this eugene picture right here, and you all were like, they are jewish, they are what ever -- their father came from the caribbean. he was a very similar complexion to migrate aunts -- my great cats. my cousin -- they are both named savila. the daughter, they call her who they differentiate are talking about. this is my cousin eugene. today he looks just like my great-grandfather. when you are a little kid and you have seen pictures of this man that you know is no longer alive, and you see someone that looks just like him -- it scares you a little bit. i believe i was afraid when i first met him. i thought i was seeing a ghost. like to show that because

this goes back to one of the things that ms. mclean was asking. she was saying, she knows people who phenotypically -- what does that mean? their physical appearance. their outward appearance. but duringne thing, these times, ok, and even through at least the 1970's and the 1980's, they were considered black. if my grandmother -- i always say this. she was one of the blackest women i have ever known. that it like this because -- that is how she identified. she identified as being very african american. that was her outlook. yes? if they looked white so they could kind of get through -- >> pas?

>> yes. savila, depending on where she was in town -- my family is from south carolina. were was a part of town only black people lived. she had to be careful. she would get on the bus in a certain heart of town and sit in the front, talk to the bus driver, even have her two kids with her because they looked like she did. busthey would get on the and he would not know anything until the stop where she got ready to get off on and then he would think, oh, my gosh. because she was violating the segregation laws. >> [indiscernible] >> they did not call the police on her. passed downa story that she used to do that. so, i did that again because it

leads to plessy and how he looked. we know from plessy versus ferguson, because you all answered your homework questions -- i hope. i did not grade than you. i hope you all did. test case for state laws that promoted segregation. we talked about tennessee and florida. in 1891, louisiana is going to segregate its trains. ok? , and youit does that have very black groups, groups politicians, and also the railroads that are going to get together because they are in opposition to do something about it. you will have a new orleans citizens committee that will be formed. and this will consist of french-speaking creoles. what you know about creoles? they speak french. what else do we know?

>> they are mixed black and french. >> yes, they are a mixture. she said black and french. they could also have native american in them. cree all generally does mean a mixture. hmm? >> [indiscernible] yes, specifically you're talking about louisiana. they are foreign to and they are going to hire a lawyer and he is a lawyer. he is a journalist. he is a novelist. of the onlines -- and he was a carpetbagger. remember what a carpetbagger is. of the things, people will feel that education will change segregation. it would educate white so they

would not be as prejudiced, and it could help african-americans get to more economic sure footing and parity. he wants to get a case that will go to the supreme court and hopefully be proved that weregation rules -- laws unconstitutional. that is what he wanted, ok? the committee had raised almost $1500 to hire him, but he decides to do it for free. one of the reasons they chose him was because as a journalist he had been riding columns about the segregation laws that they apply to the railroads. people saw those and they said, ok, this is a good guy. now he wants someone of mixed blood to accept this challenge. so we have homer plessy -- extremely fair skinned. we will see a picture of him. he is part of this new orleans citizens committee, and he says i'll do it.

,nd you see -- you already know he will be arrested and he will eventually be convicted. and he will appeal the conviction. ok? .hat is tourgee he is the one on the end. ok. we already saw these. too in this case, he wanted highlight the arbitrary notion black, was considered that one dropped.. because you had people who did not look black -- that one dropped theory. because you had people who did black.ok lik ok. homer plessy steps up. he was born free in 1862. he was a french-speaking

creedal. he is what would we consider an octoroon. isoctoroon is someone who 1/8. what that means why 18, if you go back in his ancestry, if you go back to your parents, your grandparents, that would be two on each side, that would be for. if you go back to your great-grandparents, that is eight. of your eight great-grandparents, one of them is from africa. that is one of the when it comes from. and we see he is able to pass for white. ok. now during this time the railroad company is going to support this. remember, the only thing that mattered now was green. they did not want to have to put

the money in. so, this goes back to a question i think ms. mclean raised. it will be prearranged on the day he is going to ride. because he probably could have gotten away with sitting in the car and not saying anything and doing what? riding on that train. and no one would say anything. he looked white. it was prearranged the conductor is going to know. there will be a private detective hired by the railroad. and when plessy attempts to ride, they will arrest him. so in june of 1892, he is going to come before the courts justice john howard ferguson. that is where we get the term in the name plessy versus ferguson. you know i do not do dates too much in this class, but there is one date i want you to remember. i want you to know when this goes to the supreme court.

1896. so, between plessy's arrest and his trial, judge ferguson had already ruled on another case, and this was the case of daniel f. desdunes. he was also a member of that citizens committee and he could also pass for white. let me tell you about justice ferguson. he was also a carpetbagger. he gain from massachusetts. he married the daughter of a prominent new orleans attorney. seem familiar with another of your homework questions were talking about the differences, you know talking about john to forest and george washington cable and where they --e from, and did that shape where they were from, and did it shape their opinions? it will also come into play when we talk

about the justices in the majority and dissenting opinions. so, he was a former northerner who had come south adopted some of the southern ways. did not the south -- have a monopoly on racism or discrimination. and many northerners did not believe in the equality of the races. case, anothers test case, the plaintiff was also testing -- traveling in a white only car. in this case he was traveling in an interstate train. in this case, and that is ruled that the law was unconstitutional on interstate trains. so, there is a difference. he ruled against plessy, but for desdunes. why the difference in opinion? hmm?

>> [indiscernible] >> you sound like charlie brown. do you withdraw your answer? trains maybetate because it travels to out of state places? >> you're absolutely correct. was on anes interstate train and mr. plessy intrastate. interstate went from state to state. was in louisiana. in that particular case, her cousin will uphold the law. and his reasoning and rationale, which will be the same rationale that will go into the argument when the case goes to the supreme court, is that the state has the right to do what? .olice within its borders use police power for the public good within its borders. that was the difference between

interstate and intrastate. martinez? >> [indiscernible] remember thele -- citizens committee, they knew. these were prearranged, ok? decide onedid not day, my feet are tired and i am not going to get up. it was not completely arranged, but she had been on that particular bus driver's bus before and had been treated very badly. she was an activist. this was not just one day she decided to do that. it was a citizen type of -- not necessarily a sitting, but taking steps -- >> yes. these people are pushing back against the segregation laws. they are not taking it lying

down. they are fighting back. very good. ok. regulate railroad cars, etc.. in your homework question, you are riding about the 10th amendment, and what the 10th amendment does, it talks about, you know, the rights that states have. writes the federal government does not have that the states will have. that is what that is talking about, ok? at the stateargued level where plessy loses and it goes is to -- it goes to the supreme court. now the question before the louisiana be, did the law violate the rights guaranteed to african-americans five the 14th and 13 the minutes as well? i am going to explain that. in 1892, judge ferguson says, no, it did not violate these

rights. his reasoning. ok, another picture of tourgee. in 1892, e did not want this case to go directly -- he did not want this case to go directly to the supreme court. there is a four-year period. remember, i was talking about the supreme court. there are two ways to get off the supreme court. you retire or you die. but it happens. the circle of life. did not like the makeup of the court. he did not think with the particular makeup it had at that time it would bode well for his case. -- toalso hoped to delay persuade public opinion. that does factor into a case. even though we have blinded justice in all of this other stuff, peoples grounds factor

in, their education factors in. these are factors and how they decide whether they are right or wrong. ok? he has a journalism background. he starts riding articles and articles anditing columns and he hopes to sway public opinion. something happens in 1895. a really famous speech by a really famous person. anybody remember what that speech was, september of 1895? you watched a video on this, gentleman. no! compromise?ta the view ebt doughboys will call the --w.e. atlantas called the

compromise. i was being dramatic. he was not necessarily a proponent of segregation because he will fight for segregation behind the scenes, but he gives a very public speech where people who hear it will take it that it means, what? accommodation. they will look at it as being in favor. separate issaid, the five fingers, but one is the hand? they will take it that it promotes or helps with segregation. so, when booker t. washington gives that speech and again so is like,are, tourgee ok, we are not going to go with this now.

there's nothing much more i can do. let's get this to the supreme court and roll the dice. ok? [laughter] he triedlked about how to use his journalism background to influence public opinion. but it did not happen. so, the arguments come before the court in april of 1896, and those are the justices on the court at the time. tourgee was not alone. he had two other lawyers who argued the case with him. one was a local new orleans attorney, and the other one had experience in front of the supreme court. their argument was that segregation on the railroad cars was part of the state police towers, and again what we said before -- the use separation of the races was a good thing, good for the public good in their opinion. what do you think about it? what

is your opinion? >> i believe it is not good because you were not having the same equal opportunities. like if i have a gold plate, i plate, too, gold not a silver plate. >> very good answer, ms. martinez. ok, the other side of the argument was that plessy was deprived of the equal protection rights of the 14th amendment. now i have been drilling these amendments into your heads. ok, so the 13th amendment does what you go abolishes slavery. the 14th amendment does what? grants citizenship. and the 15th amendment? voting rights for who in particular? black men.

ok, great. he said he was deprived of equal protection rights under the 14th amendment. specifically equal protection rights as being a white man, as looking white. he will try to exploit plessy's looks. now remember, he wanted someone who look like that to point to the arbitrary nature of race. he was saying this was an arbitrary racial classification. so, what did he mean by that? he meant, ok, this guy looks to white. he should be what? a whited be treated as person. does anybody see a danger in that argument?

hold that thought. ok. think about this. so, again. their argument -- forcing them into the colored car -- that's another picture of plessy. deprived him of his reputation as a white man and took away his property as a white person without due process of law. that was their argument with regard to be 14th amendment. think about what i just asked. is your hand up or are you still thinking? >> [indiscernible] >> do you see a problem with that argument? >> can you repeat the question? , he looks is arguing white. not be subject to segregation because he looks white. even someone who is considered

black because of the one dropped. or whatever, if he looks white -- because of the or whatever if, you looks like that's because you are correct. >> he is saying all people should be equal. >> very good. that is correct. you are right. if they had bought that argument yes, if you may be where this color, it would be ok. color, thatere this would not be too cool. for people who could not pass for white, they would be still boat.in that same

he said they should be arguing for equality and not because someone look a certain way. very good. i already said all of that. thatthough we pointed out fallacy if they have ruled in plessis's favor, it still would have shaken the categories of race. you're thinking about the legal argument. that is good. tourgee is going to echo some of the arguments made in front of .he civil -- supreme court he writes about how the 14th brought about the amendments because of the civil war and reconstruction, about how it brings forth a new category of citizenship, how new rights are formed.

tourgee is going to say that, too. through those decisions. the decisions are in your book, page 162 and 164. i'm going to read little parts of them and go through them until we run out of time. brown. justice he writes the majority opinion. i think i have a slide on that. i do not. [laughter] ok. all right. the object of the 14 amendment was the absolute equality of the two braces before the law. in the nature of things, it could not have been to abolish or distinguished from political equality or co-mingling of the races upon

terms unsatisfactory to either. what in the world does that mean? about there should be some social distinction between the races. brown wasnry billings from the north as well. he was born in massachusetts. he went to harvard and you. considered to be a justice moderate to conservative. when we look at what he writes as the majority opinion and what harlan john marshall rights as the dissenting opinion, again we come up -- can forest writing about on washington cable because cable gives more positive analysis of

african-americans. he was from the south and had fought for the confederacy for a who foughts deforest for the union and had a negative viewpoint of african-americans. brown was from the north. one person recuses himself because he had not posed the world argument so he did not -- world argument so he did not rule on the case. he says even if there is a separation, it does not violate the rights. he says he does this is in the nature of things. sos is natural in nature, laws should not interfere with the natural state of things. do y'all see a problem with that? i should not interfere with the natural state of things. >> depends on what is natural. >> right. who is determining what is

natural. isis determining what natural that coincides with his group because that is what he has no. -- has no. wey good pretty says consider the fallacy of the underlying argument to exist in the forced separation of the race stamps the colored with a badge of inferiority. if this be so, it is not by reason of anything in the act but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. he says the separation of the races does not mean somebody is superior and somebody is inferior. only if the black people see themselves as inferior. a lot of laws don't make sense. [laughter] a lot of them do not. he does take into consideration tourgee's argument about the right of property and coloreds'

property. but he says this would only be the case if plessy had been right -- white. he says states decide what constitutes race, not the federal government, and that and some of the other cases these decided differences between what is national citizenship and what is state citizenship. harm to ahere is the particular race if you have this separation? the other races like asians, native americans, and other ones got to use the white facilities? >> it depended>>. it depended on where you were. the south would typically have segregation by law. in other places, it would be by custom. it depended on where you work. the asians did not have a good at all. they could not do a lot of

stuff. neither could latinos or native americans in many cases. it depended what state, how vigorously those things were enforced. when we get to brown versus board of education, there will be an interesting caveat with race in the school system. yes, ms. martinez. , one ise she was asking by law and the other is by custom. onthe two races are to meet terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinity, mutual appreciation of merits, and voluntary consent of individuals. legislation is powerless to eradicate laois -- racial instincts. if one race be inferior to others socially, the constitution cannot put them on the same plane. , governmentate

should not do anything about it. these are the things we are in those other cases that come before plessy. plessy is very important. but those cases coming before are just as important because those are steps on the road plessy. they're looking at the rulings they have already made in those cases as justification of what happens with plessy. ok? he's going to say segregation did not the dive -- deny plessy his rights were deemed his supposedly inferiority. will rulee court segregation laws are constitutional as long as both races receive equal facilities. that is where you have the separate but equal doctrine coming into play. you have the great dissenter, john marshall harlan.

he will be known as the great dissenter. by birth, he is a seven or. he had owned slaves. he will free them prior to the end of the civil war. in the beginning, he was not a fan of democrats or republicans, although he will end up republican. he did not believe the south should secede from the union. that is why you see was a unionist, ok. technically, he did not support evolution, but he decides to free his slaves before the end of the civil war could he did not support the 13th amendment either and he did not support lincoln for reelection. his opinion will change. he had certain opinions as a southerner growing up in that environment. reconstruction

progress and fail, he had different attitudes. one attitude does not change. he is still a product of his time. in that time, it says certain races are superior and others are inferior. but in front of the law, he says everybody is equal. ok, in front of the law everybody is equal. he was a brown -- he will say brown's opinion is grounded in it shouldd he thinks be grounded in the law. the idea is is this decision constitutional or not, ok. some of the things he says is the decision is a dangerous one. he likens it to the decision in the dred scott case, a step on the road to the civil war. it probably helps speed up the process. in my opinion, the judgment on this date will prove to be

[indiscernible] as the decision made by this tribunal in the dred scott case. someemed we have yet in states a dominant race, a superior class of citizens which assumes to regulate the enjoyment of civil rights, to all citizens on the base of race. the present decision may be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the believe it is possible by means of state enactment to defeat the beneficial purposes for which the people -- which the people had in view when they adopted the recent amendment to the constitution. by one, the blacks were made citizens in the states they reside and have privileges and immunities the states are forbidden to a bridge. law ands segregation those that follow will also lead to race hate and the stamp of

inferiority. we can more certainly arouse will perpetuate a feeling of this trust -- that colored citizens cannot sit in coaches occupied by white citizens. he pushes separate but equal in the eyes of the law. or dominantsuperior class of citizens. it is colorblind and does not tolerate classes among citizens. with respect to civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. he borrows some of tourgee's argument when he writes the dissenting opinion. we will wrap it up here. did you have a question? >> is this when the 15th amendment disenfranchised black

men to vote? ,> one of the rulings states the 15th amendment does not say you can vote. it just says these are grounds which cannot be used to prevent you from voting. in some cases, you can see it is race. if they say it is because you did not pay your poll tax or could not pass a literacy test, it is not race. it is that wiggle room. that is going to be a problem. that will be a problem in the previous cases that lead up to plessy v. ferguson. ok. i will see him next week -- i will see all next week. thank you. >> join us each saturday for classroom lectures from across the country on different topics of american history. lectures are also available as podcasts. or downloadbsite

them from itunes. the author on the koch brothers and battle over their father's entire. >> it is this lawsuit that played out between the four brothers. charles and david on one side, bill and frederick and other shareholders on the other. this culminates in a boardroom showdown that charles ends up forging. they were trying to expand the size of the board or this would have ended up opposing charles as chairman. they would have taken a greater role in the direction of the company. the end result is bill is tossed out of the company a few years later by his brothers. there is a dramatic moment in the