Plessy v. Ferguson Marxism: Majority

Plessy v. Ferguson Marxism: Majority vs. Minority In Plessy v. Ferguson, the majority decision stated that the 'separate but equal' train cars for whites and blacks was allowed because sitting in a train car was not a protected legal right the way serving on a jury was. The Court agreed that the 13th and 14th Amendments guaranteed freedom and equality under the law to all citizens, but that being allowed to sit in a train car with the other race was neither of these.

The Court believed that where citizens sat on a train was a matter of social equality and preference and the Constitution did not protect social rights, only legal and civil rights. The main facts the majority relied on were the fact the railroad in question traveled only in the state of Louisiana. This meant that the 'commerce clause' was not involved and that the federal government did not have the power to intervene in the matter unless the law violated the U.S. Constitution.

The Court then decided that the 13th Amendment did not really apply in the case because no one's physical freedom was at risk. The Court finally determined that the 14th Amendment does not require the government create social equality, only that it prevent legal and civil inequality. The minority decision disagreed with the Court and stated that any law which forbid the races from interacting was creating inequality for the inferior class. The minority opinion is more persuasive than the majority's.

The majority opinion lacked accuracy because the 14th amendment guaranteed blacks the "right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored…implying inferiority in civil society…which are steps toward reducing them to the condition of a subject race." The majority opinion just assumed that whites would not want this happen. The majority opinion also lacks depth.

For instance, how can the Court say that blacks and must be allowed to sit next to each other in a jury box, but that the these same two people are legally forbidden to sit next to each other in the train car. The Constitution does not specifically say either one, so the Court is interpreting the law, but not doing it in the same way each time. The majority does not seem to understand the significance of its decision as far as other aspects of life.

It dismisses the idea that this law would create additional discriminatory laws.

The minority believes that "if a state can prescribe, as a rule of civil conduct, that whites and blacks shall not travel as passengers in the same railroad coach, why may it not so regulate the use of the streets of its cities and towns as to compel white citizens to keep on one side of a street and black citizens to keep on the other?" Finally, the minority opinion also understands the relevance of the case more than the majority.

As it points out, "In some of the states, a dominant race -- a superior class of citizens, which assumes to regulate the enjoyment of civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis.