In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

White Privileg e an d Blac k Despai r \f 10 1 private individuals . Nearl y a centur y elapse d befor e thos e law s wer e reenacted. SEPARATE AND UNEQUA L As ba d a s thes e development s were , wors e wa s ye t t o come . I n 189 6 i n Plessy v. Ferguson, th e Suprem e Cour t uphel d th e constitutionalit y o f state law s mandatin g racia l separation . Home r Pless y ha d challenge d th e constitutionality o f a Louisian a statut e requirin g separat e railwa y car s fo r whites an d blacks , o n th e ground s tha t i t violate d hi s right s unde r th e Thirteenth an d Fourteent h Amendments . Pless y allege d tha t becaus e h e was seven-eighth s Caucasia n an d onl y one-eight h Negro , h e wa s entitle d to ever y right , privilege , an d immunit y tha t applie d t o whit e citizen s o f the Unite d States . Hi s clai m echoe d thos e o f earl y Ohioan s claimin g a proportion o f whiteness entitlin g the m t o al l consequent privileges. 110 The Cour t rejecte d bot h constitutiona l challenges . Justic e Henr y B . Brown wrote , i n word s fille d wit h disdain , tha t th e Thirteent h Amend ment prohibite d onl y slaver y an d involuntar y servitude : A statute whic h implie s merel y a legal distinctio n betwee n th e whit e an d colored races—a distinctio n which i s founded i n the color of the two races, and whic h mus t alway s exis t s o long as white me n ar e distinguishe d fro m the othe r rac e b y color—ha s n o tendenc y t o destro y th e lega l equalit y o f the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude. 111 As fo r th e Fourteent h Amendmen t challenge , Brow n concluded , not ing a s evidenc e o f hi s separat e bu t equa l philosoph y th e existenc e o f separate school s fo r black s an d white s i n th e Distric t o f Columbi a an d i n various states , a s well a s stat e law s forbiddin g interracia l marriage : The objec t o f th e amendmen t wa s undoubtedl y t o enforc e th e absolut e equality of the two races before th e law, but in the nature of things it could not hav e bee n intende d t o abolis h distinction s base d upo n color , o r t o enforce social , as distinguished fro m political , equality or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory t o either. 112 Notice als o ho w Justic e Brow n echoe d th e view s o f Tane y an d other s when h e concede d Plessy' s clai m tha t one' s reputatio n o f belongin g t o the whit e rac e i s a kind o f property : Conceding thi s to be s o .. . we are unable t o see how this statute deprive s [Plessy] of , o r in an y way affects hi s right t o such property . If he be a white man and assigned to a colored coach, he may have his action for damages against 102 \f Whit e Privileg e an d Blac k Despai r the company. . . . Upon the other hand, if he be a colored man and be so assigned, he has been deprived of no property, since he is not lawfully entitled tothe reputation of being a white man. *13 Justice Joh n Marshal l Harla n wa s th e lon e dissente r i n Plessy, arguin g that th e Thirteent h Amendmen t no t onl y struc k dow n slaver y bu t als o prohibited an y burde n o r disabilit y tha t constitute d a badg e o f slaver...

Share