Thoughts on the Plessy Decision

“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 argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.”

I’ve been reading back through my notes from this semester, and I came across this quote I pulled from the Plessy v. Ferguson decision we read in January.  This is excerpted from the majority opinion on the case, and it’s really, truly, astounding.  No matter how many times I read this excerpt, I’m still amazed by the logic used here: if A) the plaintiff’s argument is that racial separation “stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority,” and if B) it’s clearly not “by reason of anything found” in existing law, then C) the plaintiff’s argument is indefensible because “the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”  The investment in the lie, at the highest levels of our judicial system, is remarkable to me.  Throughout this semester, we as a class have at times been incredulous when viewing evidence of inequality like this; I personally had that reaction this morning, re-reading the language and logic that under-girds the Plessy decision.