Social Barriers Instructions: Step 1: Choose a leader for this round. Step 2:  Leader  reads  aloud  the  “Background”. Background: Racial prejudice and fears of white-black  “race  mixing”  grew  after  the  passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution. As a result, Jim Crow laws spread throughout the south. These laws limited the access of blacks to such things as public education, equal accommodations on public transportation systems, and access to theaters, parks, and other community recreational sites. Other people took it upon themselves to go on one step further. They created all white “social  clubs”  that  turned  into  terrorists’  organizations.  They  called  themselves  the  Ku  Klux  Klan  (derived  from  the  Greek  “kuklos,”  meaning  circle,  and English word clan). Their goal  was  to  ensure  the  “purity  of  the  white  race”  and  to  thwart  (stop  by  any  means  necessary) any threats to that end. Though many of the targets of the Klan were black community and social leaders, blacks could be beaten, tortured, and even killed for almost any reason. Step 3:  Take  turns  reading  aloud;  “Plessy  v.  Ferguson”,  “Dred  Scott  v  Sanford”,  and  the  poem,  “Ku  Klux  Klan”.   Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: An 1890 Louisiana law commanded the railroad to “provide  equal  but  separate  accommodations  for  the  white  and  colored  races.”  Violation of this law carried a fine of $20 or 25 days in jail. Railway personnel were responsible for assigning seats according to race. Plessy, who was one-eighth black, attempted to sit in the white section of a train going from New Orleans to Covington, Louisiana. When a conductor ordered Plessy to give up his seat, he refused. He was then arrested and ordered imprisoned by Ferguson, a local judge. On appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court found that the statute under which Plessy had been arrested was valid. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE: Plessy appealed to the United States Supreme Court on the grounds  that  Louisiana’s  statute  violated  the  Thirteenth  Amendment,  which  forbids  

slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the  states  from  denying  “to  any  person  within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.” THE  COURT’S DECISION: Justice Henry Brown wrote for a seven-member majority, with Justice John Harlan dissenting (one Justice was absent). The issue related to the Thirteenth Amendment was quickly brushed aside. The  court  held  that  “a  legal  distinction  between  the  white  and colored races . . . has no tendency to destroy the legal

equality  of  the  two  races.”  However, concerned with the Fourteenth Amendment, Brown  concluded  that  it  aimed  strictly  “to  enforce  the  absolute  equality  of  the  two  races  before  the  law,”  but  that  it “could  not  have  been  intended  to  abolish  distinctions  based  on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political, equality. . . Laws requiring segregation “do  not  necessarily  imply  the  inferiority  of  either  race  to  the  other…,”  he  stated.  Brown  called  this  “the  underlying  fallacy”  of  Plessy’s  case  and  postulated that a black – controlled legislature might someday enact similar laws, which would also be valid under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled, then, that the matter  ultimately  depends  on  whether  Louisiana’s  statue  was  “reasonable.”  The  majority opinion explained that segregation  laws  “have  been  generally;  if  not  universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of  their  police  power”.  In  such  matters,  a  legislature  is  free  to  take  into  account  “establish  usages,  customs,  and  traditions of  the  people,”  as  well  as  “the  preservation  of  public  peace  and  good  order”. Finally,  Brown  rejected  the  nation  that  “social  prejudices  may  be  overcome  by  legislation”.  He  maintained,  “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 on the same plane. DISSENTING OPINION: Justice  Harlan’s  dissent  first  criticized  the  majority  opinion  for ignoring  the  true  intent  of  Louisiana’s  statute,  which  was  “under  the  guise  of  giving  equal accommodation for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep themselves while  traveling,  in  railroad  passenger  coaches”.  Harlan’s  “fundamental  objection”  to  the statute  was  that  it  “interferes  with DISSENTING OPINION: Justice  Harlan’s  dissent  first  criticized  the  majority  opinion  for  ignoring  the  true  intent  of  Louisiana’s  statute,  which  was  “under  the  guise  of  giving  equal accommodation for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep themselves while  traveling,  in  railroad  passenger  coaches”.  Harlan’s  “fundamental  objection”  to  the  statute  was  that  it  “interferes  with  the  personal  freedom  of  citizens”.  No  government  should be able to infringe the right of one race to choose to travel with another. Harlan saw  segregation  on  racial  lines  as  “a  badge  of  servitude  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  civil  

freedom  and  equality  before  the  law  established  by  the  Constitution  …  The  disguise  of  ‘equal’  accommodation  for  passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead anyone, nor atone  for  the  wrong  this  day  done”.

Dread Scott v. Sanford, 1857

THE BACKGROUND TO THE CASE: Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1779. In 1830, Scott and his master moved to Missouri, which was a slave state. Four years later, a surgeon in the U.S. army named Dr. John Emerson bought Scott and moved him to the free state of Illinois. In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved to Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in this territory. That same year, Scott  married  a  slave  named  Harriet.  In  1838,  the  Emerson’s  and the Scotts moved back to Missouri where the Scotts had two daughters. Emerson died in 1843 and left his possessions, including the Scotts, to his widow Irene. In 1846, Scott asked Mrs. Emerson if he could work for his freedom. According to Scott, she refused. Scott  sued  Mrs.  Emerson  for  “false  imprisonment”  and  battery.  Scott argued that he was being held illegally because he had become a free man as soon as he had lived in a free state. He claimed he was taken to a slave state against his will. Many slaves had sued their owners in this way and won their freedom  in  the  past.  In  1847,  Emerson  won  in  the  Missouri  Circuit  court  because  Scott’s  lawyers failed  to  prove  that  she  was  holding  Scott  as  a  slave.  Scott’s  lawyers  successfully  argued for a new trial. By the time the new case went to trial in 1850, Emerson had moved to Massachusetts leaving  her  brother  John  Sanford,  in  charge  of  Scott’s  case.  The jury agreed that Scott and  his  family  should  be  freed  in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  “once  free,  always  free”.  The case was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1852, where two of the three judges found for Emerson and Sanford. William Scott wrote the decision of the court, stating that states have the power to refuse to enforce the laws of other states. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE : Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community …  and  as  such  become  entitled  to  all  the  rights,  and  privileges,  and  immunities,  guaranteed  …  to  the  citizen? One of which is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution. MAJORITY OPINION: “We  think  they [people of African ancestry] are not [citizens], and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens”  in  the  Constitution,  and  can  therefore  claim  none  of  the  rights  and  privileges  which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.

.  .  [T]he  rights  of  private  property  have  been  guarded  with  …  care  ….  Upon  these  considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that either Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this  territory…” DISSENTING OPINION: …  He  [Scott]  is  said  to  have  had  no  negro  ancestry,  but  this  does  not show that he is not a citizen of Missouri, within the meaning of the act of congress authorizing him to sue in the Circuit Court. It has never been held necessary, to constitute  a  citizen  within  the  act,  that  he  should  have  the  qualifications….  Females  and  minors may sue in the Federal Courts, and so may individual who has a permanent domicile (home) in the sate under whose laws his rights are protected, and to which he owes allegiance. Being born under our Constitution and laws, no naturalization is required, as one of foreign birth, to make his a citizen. The most general and appropriate definition of the term  citizen  is  “a  freeman.”  Being  a  freeman, and having his domicile in a State different from that of the defendant, he is a citizen within the act of Congress, and the courts of the Union are open to him. KU KLUX By Langston Hughes They took me out To some lonesome place. They  said,  “Do  you  believe In the great white race?” I  said,  “Mister, To tell you the truth, I’d  believe  in  anything If  you’d  just  turn  me  loose.” The  white  man  said,  “Boy, Can it be You’re  a  – standin’  there A – sassin’  me?” A  klansman  said,  “Nigger, Look me in the face— And tell me you believe in The  great  white  race.”

Step 4: Leader asks the discussion questions below to the group members. If your group is not able to answer the questions, review the information again.

Discussion Questions

1. Using  “Dread  Scott  v.  Sanford,”  and  “Plessy  v.  Ferguson,” a) How did these two court cases affect the struggle for civil rights by

African Americans? b) How does the decision reached in Brown Compare with the dissent of

Justice Harlan in Plessy? c) What constitutional question(s) was/were raised by both Plessy and

Brown? d) What  is  your  personal  interpretation  of  “separate  but  equal”  and  how  

does it agree or disagree with the Brown decision?

2. Using  the  poem  “Ku  Klux”  : a) How does Hughes capture the role that the KKK played in keeping African

Americans from fighting for their rights?

Step 5: Using  the  information  that  you  learned  complete  the  “Amicus  Curiae”  worksheet (Data Sheet 6). Step 6: If  time  permits  complete  the,  “Social  Barriers”  Activity.

**** Before you move to the next center please return all items to the folder.

Copyright © 2012 Chalk-Dust-Diva