From An Elaborate Exaggeration To A Natural Integration: Arguing Against the Decision of the Plessy Court

We are ready to represent the best custom paper writing assistance that can cope with any task like From An Elaborate Exaggeration To A Natural Integration: Arguing Against the Decision of the Plessy Court even at the eleventh hour. The matter is that we posses the greatest base of expert writers. Our staff of freelance writers includes approximately 300 experienced writers are at your disposal all year round. They are striving to provide the best ever services to the most desperate students that have already lost the hope for academic success. We offer the range of the most widely required, however, not recommended for college use papers. It is advisable to use our examples like From An Elaborate Exaggeration To A Natural Integration: Arguing Against the Decision of the Plessy Court in learning at public-education level. Get prepared and be smart with our best essay samples cheap and fast! Get in touch and we will write excellent custom coursework or essay especially for you.

From An Elaborate Exaggeration To A Natural Integration

Arguing Against the Decision of the Plessy Court

“It is one thing for railroad carriers to furnish, or to be required by law to furnish, equal accommodations for all whom they are under a legal duty to carry. It is quite another thing for government to forbid citizens of the white and black races from traveling in the same public conveyance, and to punish officers of railroad companies for permitting persons of the two races to occupy the same passenger coach. 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? Why may it not, upon like grounds, punish whites and blacks that ride together in streetcars or in open vehicles on a public road or street? Why may it not require sheriffs to assign whites to one side of a courtroom, and blacks to the other? And why may it not also prohibit the commingling of the two races in the galleries of legislative halls or in public assemblages convened for the consideration of the political questions of the day? Further, if this statute of Louisiana is consistent with the personal liberty of citizens, why may not the state require the separation in railroad coaches of native and naturalized citizens of the United States, or of Protestants and Roman Catholics?”

This passage of Justice Harlan’s dissent in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case contains an argument against the majority decision of the Supreme Court to uphold separate accommodations for blacks and whites. While Harlan is correct in disagreeing with the decision, he does not make a very good argument. He attempts to create a logical flow between several different situations in which blacks and whites could have the same accommodations, but fails miserably. He also attempts to appeal to the emotions of the court, but exaggerates so much that he fails in this way as well. A better strategy for Harlan would have been to describe how blacks and whites naturally want to have equal accommodations and to commingle in every area of society.




Harlan’s argument is structured around the idea that blacks and whites should be equal before the law and that segregation in railroad cars ascribes inferiority to blacks. This premise is not explicitly stated; he does not come out and say that blacks and whites should be equal. He begins his argument with the decision of the court to uphold the law then lists several possible segregations, that he believes come as natural proceeding steps after the decision, with a rhetorical tone that implies outrage at the notion of blacks being inferior to whites. He sets up a situation and attempts to work through a logical progression in order to arrive at his conclusion. But along the way he becomes illogical. For example, he states 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?” This sentence shows that he can begin with one situation, whites and blacks traveling in a train, and illogically jump to a separate situation, whites and blacks walking along the street, without using appropriate intermediate claims to transition between the two.

Harlan’s rhetorical tone not only fails to make a logical argument by incorrectly using logos, but also fails to make an emotional argument by misusing pathos. Appealing to the emotions of a targeted audience can be an effective rhetorical strategy when used well, but Harlan is guilty of a logical fallacy by over appealing to emotion, which encourages skepticism. This is evident in his intermediate claims in which he lists several scenarios where blacks would be unequal to whites. For instance, he interprets the law to provide a possibility for sheriffs to “assign whites to one side of a courtroom, and blacks to the other” and for the races to be prohibited from commingling in all areas of life. He describes these scenarios in a progressively drastic manner, ending the passage with a reference to religious discrimination. This portion of his argument is weak. First of all, he provides so many different scenarios that he is clearly exaggerating. Also, in the last line of the quoted passage he goes from describing racial discrimination to discussing the possibility of religious discrimination. By taking such a detour from the issue at hand he is missing the point. This fallacy is evident in the exaggerated way he starts off attacking racism then concludes by attacking a totally different type of discrimination. He commits another fallacy by saying that either the races should not be segregated at all, or they will be segregated always. Certainly there could be some situations where they could be discriminated and somewhere they could not be. He is wrong in asserting that segregation is an all or nothing principle because it may be more prevalent on trains, but not as rampant in courthouses or on street corners. While these fallacies are prominent in Harlan’s argument, there are some portions of his dissent that are very strong.

A major strength in Harlan’s argument is his inclusion of figures such as the sheriff who must force the races to separate. The presence of the sheriff who has the power to “assign whites to one side of a courtroom, and blacks to the other” shows how Harlan believed that blacks and whites want to exist together and would have to be forced to separate. It is discriminatory to prevent blacks and whites from riding together; the two races should be allowed to commingle because they naturally desire to. If this were not true then sheriffs and others would not be needed to force blacks and whites apart, they would naturally separate. Furthermore, blacks and whites not only want to commingle, they want be equal under the law and have equal accommodations. If this were not true then Homer Plessy and other blacks would not have challenged the law keeping them segregated on trains. Also, blacks and whites need to be equally integrated because they can work together to improve society. Plato believed that society arose as a way for people to have their needs met by others. Blacks and whites can work together to invent new things and make the culture more diverse.

Although, it could be said that blacks and whites do not have a natural desire to integrate due to the animosity whites feel towards blacks, especially in the South where groups like the KKK sometimes violently oppose the mere existence of black people. This attitude arose out of a necessity for some whites to dominate their black slaves in order to keep the slaves working and to prevent insurrection. This mindset existed for so long that eventually white slave owners began to truly hate blacks. But the whites needed the blacks to work as slaves on their plantations in order to increase crop yields and keep the whites from working too extensively. This domination of blacks only came about when some people decided that black prisoners could be used as slaves. It did not exist throughout the thousands of years prior to the 1th century. Therefore, blacks and whites do, indeed, want to be equal; some whites resist only because they inherit it from an attitude of their ancestors who simply needed a method to keep black slaves in line.

Justice Harlan’s dissent was so exaggerated that it was unsuccessful in changing any of the minds of the other Supreme Court justices. Harlan failed to make either a logical or emotional argument. But that does not change the fact that the Supreme Court should have acknowledged human nature and allowed blacks and whites to commingle and have equal accommodations.



Mind that the sample papers like From An Elaborate Exaggeration To A Natural Integration: Arguing Against the Decision of the Plessy Court presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!