f evils will result from the commingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race
The dissent suggests that the consequences of the majority's decision about the Louisiana ordinance will cause more harm than good.
takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by the supreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a State to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.
Justice Harlan believes the Louisiana law is unconstitutional because the Constitution was meant to be color blind and for all men, no matter race. However, the law of Louisiana says that color is important and you cannot do certain things depending on your color.
The thing to accomplish was, under the guise of giving equal accommodation for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep to themselves while traveling in railroad passenger coaches. No one would be so wanting in candor a to assert the contrary. The fundamental objection, therefore, to the statute is that it interferes with the personal freedom of citizens. "Personal liberty," it has been well said,"consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever places one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due course of law."
Justice Harlan says that the real goal of segregation was to keep African Americans together and mingle with themselves and not whites.
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it
The basis for this argument is that, just because the two races are being separated does not mean that one is inferior to the other and they're essentially saying it's the colored race choosing to associate inferiority with being separated. The argument is saying that no one is inferior but African Americans are making it like it is.
We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits and a voluntary consent of individuals. . . . Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation
In 1896, this view seems reasonable for the time because not many politicians were concerned with making sure that African Americans received equal treatment as everyone else. Is it a correct view? Absolutely not. I think when it says legislation is powerless against prejudice, it is both a true and false statement. Legislation cannot force someone to change their views on a person but they can enforce rules to make sure everyone is treated equally which is what the Fourteenth Amendment was for.
The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions basedupon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. . . .
Me personally, I do see that the distinction between political and social equality is not appropriate. The Fourteenth Amendment does state in essence that no state can deny people basic rights nor treat them unfairly which was meant for everyone to receive equal treatment and due process. What this is saying is that it's okay to segregate based off of color but it's infringing on the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore it's not appropriate.
MemoirAnalysis
Will the paper be double spaced and Times New Roman? Also will footnotes or end notes be required in addition to a works cited?