In 1890, the Louisiana State legislature passed Act 111, also known as the Separate Car Act. This required white and African American people to be given separate but equal accommodations on railway trains. It required that: All railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations No person or persons shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches, other than the ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to. A second part of the statute mentioned that the officers of the train have the authority to assign each passenger to the correct compartment, and that any passenger insisting on sitting where he does not belong shall be liable by a fine or imprisonment.
[...] Contrary to the majority opinion, Justice Harlan believed that by keeping the African Americans segregated from the Caucasian travelers, the state of Louisiana imposed a “badge of slavery.” It was fostering the inferiority of the African Americans to the Caucasians. The case of Plessy v. Ferguson, became the main building block for the doctrine of “separate but equal,” a concept has been argued about, questioned, and even overturned in many cases since 1896. One such case that used Plessy as a resource in developing its decisions and opinions would be the 1917 case of Buchanan v. Warley (245 U.S. 60). [...]
[...] On May the state of Kentucky approved a municipal ordinance, entitled: ordinance to prevent conflict and ill-feeling between the white and colored races in the city of Louisville, and to preserve the public peace and promote the general welfare, by making reasonable provisions requiring, as far as practicable, the use of separate blocks, for residences, places of abode, and places of assembly by white and colored people respectively.” Though relatively self-explanatory, this ordinance prohibited a white or African American person from moving into a house on a block where the greater number of houses was already occupied by people of the opposite race. [...]
[...] In shepardizing the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Garner v. State of Louisiana is found to have questioned Plessy. Justice Douglas, in his concurring opinion, questions Plessy v. Ferguson by saying that even though a highway or the railroads may be privately funded, they need to be licensed by the state for public use. Because of the licensing and requirements put forth by the government, these establishments should now be considered public. Being that restaurants and other establishments need to be licensed by the state in order to operate, those establishments cannot be licensed to cater only to one race or another. [...]
[...] Warley, the plaintiff was being entirely denied his right to sell his property to Warley because of race, as Warley was being entirely denied his right to purchase the property because of race. A second extremely well-known case which used Plessy v. Ferguson would be the case of Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al (347 U.S. 494). This case was the basis for the desegregation of all schools in the United States. [...]
[...] Sure, two different schools may seem equal when it comes to tangible objects—books, classrooms, curricula etc—but when it comes to the quality of an education, separate is not equal. A third case which used Plessy v. Ferguson as a resource would be the 1961 case of Garner v. State of Louisiana (368 U.S. 157). In a Louisiana business establishment, the petitioners, who are African Americans, took seats at a counter where usually only Caucasians were usually served their food. They sat patiently and orderly, waiting to be served. [...]
using our reader.