and where we need to go. that will help people see mississippi is growing and improving and things are getting better in mississippi. the weekend, american history tv is featuring jackson, mississippi. our local content vehicles team recently traveled there to learn about its rich history. learn more about jackson and other stops on the city's tour at c-span.org/localcontent. you are watching american history tv all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. >> next bowie university , professor tamara brown. she teaches a course on the american concept of race and how it factored into the plessy versus ferguson decision. the case served as the legal basis for segregation until it was overturn in the 1954 brown

versus board ruling. this is about one 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. any population of human beings distinguished by physical traits such as hair color, skin color, etc. -- traditionally the categorizations are caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. although many subdivisions of these are also called races. what in the world does that mean? [laughs] ok, so 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 characteristics that can vary, even between and amongst people of a race, just as it varies between different races. that is why people say things like that. because, you know, that is not a 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 particular period we are talking about today in the 1800's is you have scientists who are performing what we will call pseudoscientific experiments and testing theories -- what is pseudoscientific? we will talk about this next class, too.

we will talk about social darwinism. what is pseudoscientific? ms. wilson? >> having to do with the mind? >> ok, yes. what is pseudo? we have the scientific part. we realize that that is something with science. what is pseudo? does it mean true or does it mean false? >> false. >> yes. pseudoscience means false science, basically. that is what people are talking about. people were trying to determine whether or not there was any superiority or inferiority within racial rankings. usually they had anglo descent

or germanic descent on top and african on bottom. usually when like that. -- usually they had the ranking like that. yes? >> [indiscernible] what is a mongoloid? >> that is asian. >> i never understood what it meant. >> ok. ok. even though we are talking about the 1800's, these ideas were not really rule. -- not really new. even as early as the beginning of the new country -- thomas jefferson was talking about observing his own slave population and the differences , particularly derogatory, that he saw 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 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, but it is going to happen anyway. so 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 -- behind that is the background of the various group is going to shape their perception of race. latin america, they could not deny the racial mixture existed. and 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. was thend point there mulatto escape hatch. this relates more to the caribbean. anyone's family from the islands? some hands up. the idea is, again, you have this more -- i would say fluid, but i do not know if that is the word i want to use. but this more fluid idea of race. the closer one got to the european elements, the header

-- better 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. so they are half-blooded. >> 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 that 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. 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, many people 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 was asking them 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. but 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 speak mostly portuguese. >> portuguese. what about the racial element? she is correct. anything about the racial element? do any of you all want to go to carnivale?

>> they also had an african element. >> a huge african element. she is correct. they have 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 are more african or not. and there are various gradations from white to black. that is still very prevalent today. ok.

so, having said that -- in your "constant struggle" book, i know you have your books with you. but i will read it for you. 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 -- 1865 to 1927. it is not that they stop in 1927. you even see the first one up there from alabama. 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 word negro includes the lotto. the lotto means a person of mixed blood from negro ancestors

without reference to or limit of time or number of generations removed. arkansas -- a person of negro race as any person who has in his or her veins any negro blood whatsoever. ok. georgia -- all negroes, mulatto's, and mestizos -- what is it a mestizo? we know will is african and european. it means mixture. you get that. you have your hand up. >> i am going to guess caucasian and mexican. >> close. you said mexican, but wouldn't it be -- it becomes mexican when mexico becomes a country. but it would be european and usually native american, ok? very good. all right then. ok. negroes, mulattos, mestizos and

their descendents having any trace of either negro, african, west indian, or asiatic indian blood in their veins, any prison having either negro, african, west indian, asiatic and 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. all negroes, mulattos, mestizos, and descendents having any african blood in their veins shall the known as persons of color. 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 -- they come from northern africa. >> 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. it says that 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. it has only been relatively recently. i know you all think that means the last five years, but it has been in about 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 they have just a percentage of black, they would

consider black no matter who your parents are. >> are you a math major? >> no. >> she is even putting it back to great, great ancestors. basically, the idea with the one drop theory -- you heard 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. they included that colored people included what? asian people. they expanded that. with the one drop theory 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. -- patterns. i mentioned this in the lecture about the supreme court and how it will turn its back 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. says southern segregation will be sanctioned by law as the century changes because of plessy versus ferguson. and this will legalize processes -- practices 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 these. 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 is 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. and 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 did 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. specifically the one in 1875. which bit -- which would be overturned in 1883. these 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. these were accommodations 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. what does dr. brown always say? 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 stories, because i know y'all like those. 1889, black baptist from baptists from savanna or just train tickets. to go to an annapolis. at a stop in georgia they were , met by an angry white mob that threatened to beat them.

dr. brown is quoting. "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. brains out." mary church -- she will be very important. a civil rights activist in washington, d.c. her father will be one of the first black millionaires. she will be traveling alone in the first class coach and the conductor will tell her to move to the second class car. she will refuse, and she will threaten him by saying i will telegram my father if you make me do this. ok? now, the tennessee legislature will enforce 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. ok, how do 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 to have separate sections or whatever specifically for , african-americans. >> with the one drop theory, you said if you had one drop of black blood, it would be considered african-american. last class, you said when the , when they would

impregnate the black women slaves and then have a mixed child -- >> 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 he is white -- >> 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. i am playing with y'all. 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?

>> you paid all that money to sit in the 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 specifically for women, too. and even when blacks did pay -- did i have that on there? yes 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.

your white suit is what? a dingy shade of gray. for women traveling alone, they would pay for the ladies car or if 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? during this time 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.

not saying you are bad because you to tobacco, but you just 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 and her anti-lynching campaign s and crusades. in 1884, she will be traveling in the ladies coach of the chesapeake and ohio railroad car. the conductor will tell 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. she will get off the train, and she will sue. she will hire a black lawyer at first, but if her case is not -- but as her case is not progressing, she will hire a white lawyer. she will win her case initially. $100, but it won 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 looked at all of those things. and now we are coming to our game show for the day. whoo! dr. brown 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. hold up a second, we have not started yet. 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. so, delineate however you may. ok, these people -- what you think they are? >> [indiscernible] >> she works in the library of

photo archives. so. that is why she is dissecting this picture. ok, ms. martinez. are we consistent on this one? ok, whatever y'all say. it is a game. you think too much. >> [indiscernible] >> we have -- what do we have? black, native american, mestizo? >> black? >> are you sure? >> yeah. >> 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? >> mongoloid. >> he is 1/8 probably. >> huh? >> he looks 1/8. >> [indiscernible] >> he has black and him though -- in him though. >> the nose, mr. cranston? >> [indiscernible] >> what about her? european? [laughter] what specific country? >> london? >> next. >> hispanic? >> she is black. >> the mother.

look at her nose. she is black. [laughter] >> sticking to that nose. >> she is jewish. >> her nose -- she is jewish? what about her? >> 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. >> ooh. [laughs] 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. [laughter]

this is my aunt, my grandfather, my great-grandfather. his name was james smiley. 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. my great grandmother is there. those are her two aunts. he is the same person as this person. different picture. 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 --

come on. that is my grandmother. that is her sister. 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. in fact, and i only found this out a few years ago she could , speak cherokee. she did not teach her children to speak cherokee because she felt that they were oppressed enough because of that one drop theory. she was not going to oppress them more because they were part cherokee. this group right here -- my great-grandfather, he had two wives. not at the same time. this was the first set of

children he had. he had a brother and a sister. they differed in complexion because since he was born into slavery, his father was a plantation owner, and there is not.ot -- and their's was 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. and my aunt. 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. my cousin -- they are both named savila. toy call the daughter emile 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. 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. and 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. pass for white people. >> well, >> my aunt savila, she used to get on the bus -- depending on where she was in town -- my family is from south carolina. there were certain parts of town where only black people lived. she had to be careful. she would get on the bus in a certain place in town and whatever 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 them yet. 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 various black groups, groups of politicians, and also the railroads that are going to get together because they are in opposition to do something about

-- opposition to this and they are going to decide how 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? >> they are southern. >> yes, you're typically talking about louisiana. they are formed 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. somebody who came from the north and came down south during the

reconstruction. things is he is going to feel that education can help 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 -- writing columns about the segregation laws as they applied to the railroads.

so people saw that this was 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. we already saw these. last point, also in this case, he wanted to highlight the -- arbitrary nature of what was considered black, that one drop theory. because you had people who did not look black.

ok. again homer plessy steps up. ,he is born free in 1862. he was a french-speaking creole. he is what would we consider an octoroon. those mathematical figures. an octoroon is someone who is 1/8. what that means is if you go back in his ancestry -- if you go back to your parents, that is two, and you go back to year grandparents, and that is two. that would be four. if you go back to your great-grandparents, that is eight. of those eight, one of them was from africa. 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. outwardly 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 -- court of 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. and that year is 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 was originally from massachusetts. he went south and stayed there. he married the daughter of a prominent new orleans attorney. this should seem familiar with another of your homework questions when we 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. 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 are 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, ferguson 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? >> how did they figure it out, that he had black on him? >> these people -- remember the citizens committee, they knew. these were prearranged, ok? just like, fast-forward ahead, 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 companies, police cars etc. , in your homework question, you at the 10th amendment, and what the 10th amendment does, it talks about, you know, the rights that states have. rights that 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 13thth the 14th and amendments, 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. if you remember, i was talking about the supreme court. i was talking about two ways to get off the supreme court. you retire or you die. sometimes people retire and unfortunately they expire. 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 and all of this other people's backgrounds 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. another one of your homework questions. 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. >> [indiscernible]

>> no! >> the atlanta compromise? >> it is what the w.b. dubois called the atlanta compromise. it is booker t. washington's speech. that is ok. i was being dramatic. although booker t. washington was not necessarily a proponent of segregation because he will fight for segregation behind the -- fight against segregation behind the scenes, but he gives a very public speech where people who hear it will take it that it means, what? this whole theory of 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 it gets 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? 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 rusted 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? 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 that 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, it can 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?

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 they look white, what does that why is he not arguing equality? you are correct he is not. >> the argument should be all people should be equal. >> there you go. .ery good, y'all i am so proud of you. that is correct. you are right. because if they had bought that argument, and this goes back to something that was being asked, yes, if you may be were this color, you would be ok.

color, thatre this would not be too cool. for people who could not pass for white, they would still be stuck in that same boat. he is correct they should be noting for equality and specifically just because somebody looked a certain way. very good. now, even though we pointed out that fallacy, if they had ruled in such a favor, it still would have shaken up all those categories of race. some of y'all may think about being lawyers because you thinking about the legal arguments. ok.

if they had bought that argument, yes, if you may be where this color, it would be ok. but if you were this color, that would not be too cool. for people who could not pass for white, they would be still stuck in that same boat. he said they should be arguing for equality and not because someone look a certain way.

very good. i already said all of that. even though we pointed out that fallacy if they have ruled in plessy'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 the supreme court. he writes about how the 14th amendment 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. now i will go 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. this is justice brown. 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 based on color or distinguished from political equality or co-mingling of the races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. what in the world does that mean? he is talking about there should be some social distinction between the races. justice henry billings brown was from the north as well. he was born in massachusetts. he went to harvard and yale. he was considered to be a justice moderate to conservative. when we look at what he writes as the majority opinion and what justice john marshall harlan writes as the dissenting opinion, again we can look back at de forest writing about

washington cable because cable gives more positive analysis of african-americans. he was from the south and had fought for the confederacy for a while versus de forest, who fought 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 oral 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. this is natural in nature, so 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. he is determining what is natural that coincides with his group because that is what he has known. very good. he says we consider the fallacy of the underlying argument to exist in the forced separation of the races stamps the colored race 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 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. he says, where is the harm to a 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. in some places, 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. just like she was asking, one is by law and the other is by custom. if the two races are to meet on 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 racial instincts. if one race be inferior to others socially, the constitution cannot put them on the same plane.

in his estimate, government should not do anything about it. these are the things we are seeing 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 deny plessy his rights or deem his supposedly inferiority. the supreme court will rule 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. by contrast, you have the great dissenter, john marshall harlan. he will be known as the great dissenter. by birth, he is a southerner. 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 abolition, 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. as he sees 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 will say brown's opinion is grounded in opinion and he thinks it should be grounded in the law. the idea is -- is this decision constitutional or not, ok. some of the things he says, 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. it seemed we have yet in some 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 belief it is possible by means of state enactment to defeat the beneficial purposes 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 abridge. he states segregation law and those that follow will also lead to race hate and the stamp of inferiority. we can more certainly arouse race hate, what will perpetuate a feeling of distrust that colored citizens cannot sit in coaches occupied by white citizens. again, he pushes separate but equal in the eyes of the law. there is no superior or dominant 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 y'all next week. thank you.