Scott v Sandford and Plessy v Ferguson
The Legal Origins of Jim Crow Segregation
There is no doubt that the purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon significantly influenced expansion west of the Mississippi River. Within a few years, the ever-present controversy surrounding slavery in Louisiana would erupt and impact the balance of political power. The Missouri Compromise (1820) was initially seen as a solution but was overturned with the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) that introduced popular sovereignty and gave the issue of slavery to the states. However, Scott v Sandford was already making its way through the court system. Like Plessy v Ferguson nearly 40 years the Scott decision provided Jim Crow supporters that legal standing for the social and economic subjugation of generations of blacks in the 20th century.
Scott v Sandford (1857)
Dred Scott was the slave to an Army surgeon and lived in territories that initially prohibited slavery under the Missouri Compromise. After his owners death, Scott sued for his freedom claiming that his residence in free states meant he and his wife were now free. The case made its way to a Southern-dominated Supreme Court where a negative decision was not wholly unexpected, but still shocking.
Speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated that blacks, free or not, were not citizens of the United States. He argued that because of their racial inferiority blacks were never meant to be included under the word “citizens” as used in the Constitution. Furthermore, Taney stated that blacks had no rights that whites were obliged to respect. Therefore, Scott could not sue in the court system, and since he was born a slave, he would remain so.
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Like Scott v Sandford, Plessy v Ferguson began in an attempt to challenge existing racial policies restricting the movements and subsequently, the lives of southern blacks. Homer A. Plessy, who was one-eighth black, purposefully purchased a train ticket from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana, on June 7, 1892 to challenge Louisiana's Separate Car Act (1890). He was subsequently arrested after attempting to board the “whites only” car and sued under the assertion that the 1890 law was a violation of the 13th and 14th Constitutional Amendments.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision to uphold an 1890 Louisiana law by stating that the separation of blacks and whites in transportation facilities did not imply inferiority of one race to another, as long as the facilities were equal. Furthermore, the Court argued that the essence of the 14th Amendment was not violated by the equal separation of the races. In his majority opinion, Justice Henry Billings Brown argued that the 14th Amendment did not implicitly infer that blacks had a right to “comingle” with whites.
However, Justice John Marshall Harlon, the lone member of the Supreme Court that dissented from the majority opinion, argued that this decision would have disastrous effects on blacks. He prophetically argued that the enforcement of “separate but equal” would interfere with the personal freedoms of individuals, especially blacks, as segregation would eventually extend to other aspects of society.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Scott v Sandford and Plessy v Ferguson legitimized Jim Crow in the United States. By the early 20th century segregated facilities appeared practically everyone. However, they were almost never equal. Thankfully, Jim Crow is dead. But are there still folks in our society that agree with Taney that blacks have no guaranteed rights under the Constitution?
References
Thomas, Brook. Plessy v. Ferguson: A Brief History with Documents. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997
Wolfe, Karen. “From Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education: The Supreme Court Rules on School Desegregation.”; accessed July 1, 2009.
What do you think about this article?
More in History
Latest Articles