Saturday, December 6, 2014

Political, Not Social Rights

 https://f38127902844d2d310ca-1df1a87cae2ea2c629203abf3b29fb44.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/F72AE2DC-EA94-4DDE-8CF9-275FDBCFB5D6.jpg

Republican President Grant stated in his second inaugural address on 4 March 1873: “Social equality is not a subject to be legislated upon, nor shall I ask that anything be done to advance the social status of the colored man, except to give him a fair chance to develop what there is good in him, give him access to the schools, and when he travels let him feel assured that his conduct will regulate the treatment and fare he will receive.”
Bernhard Thuersam, Circa1865

Political, Not Social Rights

“Mr. Justice [Henry Billings] BROWN . . . delivered the opinion of the court. This case turns upon the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly of the State of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races. Acts 1890, No. 111, p. 152.”

“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 necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the State legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption.

The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the Negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other’s merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals.

As was said by the Court of Appeals of New York in People v. Gallagher, 93 NY 438, 448: “This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws which conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law, and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized, and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.”

Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. 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.”

(Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US, 537, 18 May 1896)

2 comments:

  1. Boy, what a joke. I live and believe what this nation was founded on; there was a
    purpose and remains the rule of law. Ignoring changes nothing.
    Let us remember what founding Father John Jay wrote in the Federalist Paper, No. 2:
    "Providence has been pleased to give this once connected country to one united people, descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of govenment, very similar in their manners and customs." This is the USA. Like Jackie Kennedy
    said, "monkeys in tuxedos."

    ReplyDelete