Text commentary : The plessy dissident

Text commentary : The Plessy Dissident (1896)

In this text, Harlan gives his opinion against the Plessy v Ferguson decision of 1896, taken by the Suprem Court, that declares that segregation is conformed at the Constitution of the USA and that validated the « separate but equal » doctrine : there was no problem with separating the races as long as blacks on the one hand and whites on the other hand were given equal.

Harlan takes the example of the Louisiana statute that says that « all railway companies carrying passengers inthat state are required to have separate but equal accommodations for white and colored persons » (l.2-3). In his text, Harlan uses this example to show ridiculous is this statute.

First, we will see why, to him, this is no even conformed at the Constitution, and then, we will see why this statute represents such an injustice and a paradox to him.

Harlan shows in this text, why the Suprem Court's decision is not conformed at the Constitution.

To underline this idea, Harlan uses the world « Constitution » more than ten times.

At that time, the admendment 13th and the 14th were just adopted by the Congress. The 13th one abolished slavery and the 14th one made Black citizens at last.

To him, these amendments « were welcomed by the friends of liberty » (l.30), which means that he was in favor of the abolition of slavery, and as a consequence, black people should be free.

However, Harlan says that the Louisina's statute « interferes with the personal freedom  of citizens » (l.54). Indeed, the statute prevents to blacks to have a sit next to white people, they are restricted in their personnal lives by this statute, that occured their freedom, which is not even conformed at the Constitution. Harlan is angry against it. He denounced « the injustice of such legislation » (l.10).

Therefore, he precises that « our Constitution is color-blind » (l.70), so making a disctinction between people by the color of their skin seems not even conformed at the Constitution, moreover, « it cannot be justified upon any legal grounds » (l.115).

Then, Harlan gives his opinion on the subject : to him, this statute represents such an injustice and it is ridiculous. He uses irony to denounce it, just like line 84-85 : « it seems that we have yet, in some of the States, a dominant race ». He also uses irony from line 103 to line 112, by using the example of a Chinaman, very different to white people, but authorized to journey with whites, when blacks people are excluded and can be « declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment » because of this difference. It underlines the paradox of this statute.

Than, he argues that such a statute can have dangerous consequences line 98 : « what can more certainely create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races » (than this statute). More than a statute not conformed to the Constitution, this endangers the unity of the country and this will certainely pave the way to a more important distrust between these two « races ».

He mentions the word « freedom » more than 5 times, to underline the fact that what is important is the freedom of people, but that this statute is an obstacle to it. He uses a positive vocabulary to talk about freedom « enjoyment of the blessings of freedom » (l.130), and a negative one to qualify the legislation (« sinister » l.129). That shows that he is opposed at this legislation beacuse it goes against individual freedom of all american citizens defined in the Constitution.

...