>> yes. pseudoscience means false science, basically. people were trying to determine whether or not there was any superiority or inferiority within racial rankings. usually they had anglo descent usually they had anglo descent on top and african on bottom. usually when like that. yes? >> [indiscernible]

what is a mongoloid? >> that is asian. >> [laughter] >> ok. ok. even though we are talking about the 1800s, these ideas were not really rule. thomas jefferson was talking about observing his own slave population and the differences he thought about with his own enslaved population and others around him, and he writes these notes 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. so, this differs wherever you 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? when the english do their 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 those people come, men are typically coming out first to settle the area. and they're going to have relations with whatever female group is there, ok? so in this case we will have a mixture of native americans, africans, and europeans.

so, with the spanish and the french 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 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. but it is the idea of what they promote. this is the mulatto escape hatch. this is the caribbean. anyone's family from the islands? some hands up. again, you have this more -- i 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? >> someone who is african and 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 times, and even today, to have more opportunities. so, now since a lot of people in line america, again, had this ideal where, we are like a cosmic race and there is no denying it, at the same time we will be talking about today, 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 it. at 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. if you were to go to argentina, 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 in brazil -- let me ask. what do we know about brazil? ok, i see your hand up first. >> they spoke portuguese. >> portuguese. what about the racial element? anything about the racial element? do any of you all want to go to carnival? >> they also had an african element. >> a huge african element. she is correct. they had a huge african element. brazil 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 brazil had a large portion of the transatlantic slave trade, a large portion of those individuals came to brazil. even in brazil, who again, likes to look at itself as this type of racial 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. so, having said that -- in your "constant struggle" book, i know

you have your 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. it is not that they stop in 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 mestizo?

a mixture. you get that. you have your hand up. >> caucasian and mexican. >> you said mexican, but wouldn't it be -- it becomes mexican when mexico becomes a country. it would be european and usually native american, ok? all right then. ok. negroes, mulattos, mestizos and 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? for georgia, the term white

person shall include only persons of the white or caucasian race who have no ascertainable trace of either negro, african, west indian, asiatic, indian, mongolian, japanese, or chinese blood in their veins. no person, any of whose ancestors have been duly registered with the state board of vital statistics as a person of color shall be deemed you be a white person. all right. louisiana. louisiana defines a colored person as all persons with any 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. they shall be known as persons of color. ok. ok. and then virginia has an interesting one.

because they make a distinction between people 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. >> they kind of say the same thing about what a negro was, a colored person was, but they define in different ways. however, 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 descent is, and they certainly -- they say any appreciable amount, ascertainable amount of african blood are not what? are not white. are not white. although the state laws vary, what the united states had --

sorry, i am not bringing that into contemporary times, because we do think differently about this today. this is been the last 30 to 35 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? >> if you had even one 32nd percentage black -- >> are you a math major? >> no. [laughter] >> she is even putting it back to great, great ancestors. basically the idea with the one drop theory -- you were those laws and they 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? asian people. ms. easley is correct. with the one drop theory, if you had one drop of black 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. i mentioned this in the lecture 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. you get the sense that southern segregation will be sanctioned by law as the century changes because of plessy versus ferguson. and this will legalize processes that already existed. even prior to this, southern 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.

georgia and virginia 1870. 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 on, which north carolina will do and mississippi will do as well. so we already had what? 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 parity or social equity. it does not make people equal in their social status. ok. now, when 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. we talked about the school 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 streetcars. the streetcars would be equivalent to what? not your buses, but your - your metro. think about it as above ground metro. they will 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 bills that were passed. ok? specifically the one in 1875. this will attempt to guard against infringements and public

accommodations. if you all are 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 come in. 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 what we notice? it does not take place in the south. it takes place in the north. philadelphia. the south does not have a monopoly on racism or discrimination. so, the north, although it will have 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. so, you see 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. so, let me give you a couple of first. i know you like those. 1889, black baptist from baptists from savanna or just 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. you g.d. heffer, if you do not get out of here, i will blow off your g.d. face." mary church -- she will be very important. her father will be one of the 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 will end for segregation on their railroad cars as early as 1881 and florida will pass a similar law in 1887. i 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? so it was expensive to equip your train with a separate car

or court off a separate section or whatever specifically for african-americans. yes? >> [indiscernible] the one dropped.. you said a white person, if they had one drop of 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. >> so 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. >> hold 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. 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. and even when blacks did pay -- to have that somewhere? even when they did pay for the first-class ticket, they had to sit in the second-class cars when 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 soot and smoke blowing. and your white suit is what? a dingy shade of gray. for 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. now chewing 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 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. now this will take us to ida b. wells. thank goodness.

we will learn more about her after we take our 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. and when she will protest, he will end 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 bite 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. wells and the example before of mary church. and how they did not want to passively stand by. 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. now 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. now, you can get as creative as you want. some people, you know, give me all sort of things and i am surprised how close they come. [laughter] so, delineate however you may. ok, these people -- what you think they are? >> [indiscernible] >> she works in the library of photo archives. so. are we consistent on this one? >> [indiscernible]

>> it is a game. thank you much. >> [indiscernible] >> we have -- what do we have? black, native american, mestizo? >> black? >> are you sure? all right. i can tell you in this picture, that is an outhouse, if you have never seen one. >> definitely native. >> mixed, mulatto. what is that? hispanic? latino? >> he is 1/8 probably. >> huh? >> he looks 1/8. >> [indiscernible] >> the nose, mr. cranston?

>> [indiscernible] >> what about her? european? [laughter] what specific country? >> london? >> hispanic? >> she is black. >> the mother. look at her nose. she is black. >> sticking to that nose. >> she is jewish. >> her nose -- he is jewish? >> she is white. >> white. >> she has got to be white.

>> i think she is jewish. >> i think you all will be happy to know you just categorized my family member. ok, this is my grandmother. she is black. this is my great aunt, her sister. also black. my mom's first cousins. black, black. >> oh, my lord. >> oh, my lord. >> this is my aunt, my grandfather, my great-grandfather. he was born into slavery. they called him pat. don't ask me why. pat. >> pat? >> that is a south carolina thing. don't try to understand it. this is my mom's favorite cousin edison.

those are her two aunts. this is the same person. that is 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. these two are -- that is my grandmother. and that is -- those are the two in the other picture. you said native american. but you are not too far off because -- come on back. so, she is that triple 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 enough because of that one drop theory. she was not going to oppress them more because they were part cherokee. my great-grandfather, he had two wives.

not at the same time. this is 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. my grandmother belongs to the second set. his first wife died, and then he married my great grandmother. those are - their little brood 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. my cousin eugene, in this picture right here, and you all were like, they are jewish, they are whatever -- their father came from the caribbean. he was a very similar complexion to my great aunt's. my cousin -- they are both named savila. the daughter, they call her emile, to differentiate who they 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. so, i 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. they look one thing, but during 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. i say it like this because that -- 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 -- >> pass?

>> yes. >> my aunt savila, depending on where she was in town -- my family is from south carolina. there was a part of town were 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. so, they would get on the bus 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. but that is a story passed down 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. this was the 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 when it does that, and you have very black groups, groups of 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. creole 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. and his name is albion winegar tourgee, and he was a carpetbagger. remember what a carpetbagger is. one 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 segregation laws were 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. and you already know, he will be arrested and he will eventually be convicted. and he will appeal the conviction. ok? that is tourgee. he is the one on the end. ok. we already saw these. also in this case, he wanted to highlight the arbitrary notion of what was considered black, that one drop theory. because you had people who did not look black. 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. an octoroon is someone who is 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 four. 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. ok, 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. ok, 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. this should seem familiar with another of your homework questions were talking about the differences, you know talking

about john de forest and george washington cable and where they were 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. ok? so, he was a former northerner who had come south and adapted and adopted some of the southern ways. although the south -- did not have a monopoly on racism or discrimination. and many northerners did not believe in the equality of the races. in the desdunes case, another test case, the plaintiff was also traveling in a white only car. in this case he was traveling in an interstate train. in this case, and that is desdunes, he 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?

so, he was a former northerner who had come south and adapted and adopted some of the southern ways. although the south -- did not have a monopoly on racism or discrimination. and many northerners did not believe in the equality of the races. in the desdunes case, another test case, the plaintiff was also traveling in a white only car. in this case he was traveling in an interstate train. in this case, and that is desdunes, he 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?

>> the interstate trains maybe because it travels to out of state places? >> you're absolutely correct. mr. desdunes was on an interstate train and mr. plessy was on an intrastate. interstate went from state to state. intrastate 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? police within its borders. use police power for the public good within its borders. that was the difference between interstate and intrastate. yes, ms. martinez? >> [indiscernible] >> these people -- remember the citizens committee, they knew. these were prearranged, ok? rosa parks did not decide one 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 sit-in type of -- not necessarily a sit-in, 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. again, we said 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? this case is argued at the state level where plessy loses and it goes to the supreme court. now the question before the court will be, did the louisiana 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, he did not want this case to go directly to the supreme court. there is a four-year period. i+f you 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. he 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. so he also hoped to 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 writing articles and 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, gentlemen. no! >> the atlanta compromise? >> it is what the w.e.b. dubois called the atlanta 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. remember we said, separate is

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 much fanfare, tourgee is like, 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] so, we talked about how he tried 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. so, their argument was that segregation on the railroad cars was part of the state police powers, and again what we said before -- they 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 would want a gold plate, too, 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 looked 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? he should be treated as a white person. does anybody see a danger in that argument?

hold that thought. ok. think about this. so, again. their argument -- forcing him 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. now 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? >> tourgee is arguing, he looks white. so he should not be subject to segregation because he looks white. even someone who is considered black because of the one drop theory, or whatever if you looks like that's because you are correct. he is not arguing equality.

he is saying that he looks white but his argument is that all people should be equal. >> that is correct. you are right. if they had bought that argument, ok? argument,about that if you are maybe this color, you would be ok. color, thatare this would not be too cool. so, for people who could not pass for white, they would be what, still stuck in the same boat. they shouldn't be arguing for equality, not just because somebody look a certain way. very good.

ok, authorities said all about. even though we pointed out that fallacy, if they had ruled in plessy's favor. it still would have shaken up those categorizations of race. some as you might think about being lawyers because you're thinking about the legal arguments. toget will echo the civil rights case of 1883. he writes about how the 14th amendment pride about, and actually all of the amendments come about because of civil war and reconstruction. it brings forth a new category of citizenship. how new rights are formed. so, portége will say the stuff. through those decisions.

decisions are in your struggle. page 162 and page 164. i will only read parts of it. so, he writes the majority opinion, i think i have a slide on that. the object was undoubtedly to enforce the two races before the law. in the nature of things, it could not have been to abolish distinctions based upon color or to enforce the political of quality or terms unsatisfactory to either. what does that mean? well, he's talking about there should be some social the station.

there should be some social visitation between the races. -- some social distinction between the races. brown was from the north. he was born in massachusetts. he went to harvard and yale. he was considered to be a justice who was moderate to conservative.