Plessy v. Ferguson goes the other way

CaliGuy

Banned
What if Plessy v. Ferguson (and Pace v. Alabama, for that matter) would have went the other way?
 
Blacks might actually be treated like humans seventy years early.

But more realistically the blue vein societies, mixed race poor and black middle class would largely assimilate at higher rates into the White community leaving the impoverished blacks to eek out a liberation movement without the support of wealthier black and mixed race patrons and support from the liberal white upper and middle classes. It'd be dead in the water basically.

The Virginia tribes would not have lost the federal status and a number of black-indigenous tribes would arguably be given federal recognition as well.

The Mulatto Escape hatch of Brazil would occur in the US and we would have a racial system much like other Latin American populations where the whites as they call themselves would not be as white as we assume them to be now (South Carolina and Louisiana for example have the highest proportion of Whites with atleast 2% african dna given a "escape hatch" that existed for many centuries), the mixed race would go through a hyperdescent rather the hypodescent and notions of blackness would be very narrow. The mixed race socially assimilated populations would not by the whole associate or align with black suffering and struggles and we would only be creating the door way for a three tiered system fraught with the same challenges we see in Brazil today.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Blacks might actually be treated like humans seventy years early.

Yes; however, how much would the South have resisted this in 1896 (relative to the 1950s and 1960s in our TL)?

But more realistically the blue vein societies, mixed race poor and black middle class would largely assimilate at higher rates into the White community leaving the impoverished blacks to eek out a liberation movement without the support of wealthier black and mixed race patrons and support from the liberal white upper and middle classes. It'd be dead in the water basically.

The Virginia tribes would not have lost the federal status and a number of black-indigenous tribes would arguably be given federal recognition as well.

The Mulatto Escape hatch of Brazil would occur in the US and we would have a racial system much like other Latin American populations where the whites as they call themselves would not be as white as we assume them to be now (South Carolina and Louisiana for example have the highest proportion of Whites with atleast 2% african dna given a "escape hatch" that existed for many centuries), the mixed race would go through a hyperdescent rather the hypodescent and notions of blackness would be very narrow. The mixed race socially assimilated populations would not by the whole associate or align with black suffering and struggles and we would only be creating the door way for a three tiered system fraught with the same challenges we see in Brazil today.

Frankly, all of this makes sense if these alt-U.S. Supreme Court rulings are actually enforced in this TL. :)
 
I'm pretty sure that the states in question would just defy the ruling - the Supreme Court didn't carry nearly as much gravitas pre-Court packing as it would later.
 
I'd love to see the South try to defy this ruling when they're still rebuilding from the last time they picked a fight with the Federal government.
 
I'd love to see the South try to defy this ruling when they're still rebuilding from the last time they picked a fight with the Federal government.

It's pretty easy, considering Reconstruction was them fighting an undeclared guerilla war against the federal government and winning. The North lost its stomach to socially engineer the South after the Grant Administration.
 
Yes; however, how much would the South have resisted this in 1896 (relative to the 1950s and 1960s in our TL)?

Frankly, all of this makes sense if these alt-U.S. Supreme Court rulings are actually enforced in this TL. :)
Within the South there has always been a history of assimilating mixed race people of standing and whom were indebted to an economic model of black subservience into whiteness. The Washingtons, yes THE Washingtons had assimilated mixed race people into their family . As did hundreds of others within the upper classes of the U.S.

The South got their teeth knocked in before and it could happen again, especially by arming and training freed slaves and arguably allowing non-white immigrants into the country also fighting against a South that had no right to take stand.
 
It's pretty easy, considering Reconstruction was them fighting an undeclared guerilla war against the federal government and winning. The North lost its stomach to socially engineer the South after the Grant Administration.

A Supreme Court ruling would force things into black and white.
 
They were black and white already. I think that was the point.

Seriously, though, everyone knew what was happening, so that doesn't change much.

My point is that, when the Supreme Court is ruling one way, it binds people's hands a little. Further, if the South wants to oppose this, it would be through governmental (state) action, rather than local unrest. Consider that the case in question was a group of private southerners acting against state law. My understanding is that private businesses were generally not too enamored with the various Jim Crow laws, since they tended to alienate customers and raise costs (imagine how annoying it was to have to have extra passenger cars.. particularly given that none of the rail lines liked running passenger trains, compared to freight, anyway).
 
Enforcement would be difficult. I imagine things would be somewhat better....probably a little closer to equal but still not there..of course it's questionable if we are there now.

Keep in mind that even in the more enlightened North, I suspect many whites thought separate but equal was just fine.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Enforcement would be difficult. I imagine things would be somewhat better....probably a little closer to equal but still not there..of course it's questionable if we are there now.

Yeah, what I am concerned about would be how hard the federal government will try to enforce this ruling in the South; after all, some federal troops might very well be required for this.

Keep in mind that even in the more enlightened North, I suspect many whites thought separate but equal was just fine.

Perhaps; however, please keep in mind that all Northern U.S. states allowed interracial sex and interracial marriage since 1887. Thus, even during this time, there appears to have been a growing feeling in the North that textual-but-not-practical equality is immoral.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Also, Yes, segregated schools, railroad cars, et cetera are different from interracial sex/interracial marriage bans; however, once Blacks are (thankfully) assumed to be good enough to marry Whites, it wouldn't be too much of a logical extension to say that Blacks are likewise good enough to attend school, use railroad cars, et cetera together with Whites.
 
You might also see the "patchwork quilt" of Southern states that I developed in "Brotehrhood and Baseball," where the Civil War ending 18 months early and baseball integrated from the start leads some Southern states to be more equal than others; Louisiana being one. (The laws Plessey were about never get passed TTL) While the POD would be 30+ years later (and with no baseball integration to show blacks and whites together on a national stage) and so you wouldn't see quite as much movement toward a bit of equality, in Louisiana, Tennessee, and a couple others, you probably would see them move a little more toward that tiered system and a South Carolina, Alabama, and Mississippi.

I can see John McGraw signing a player or two like he wanted to in the 1900-1915 range (Cristobel Torrienti breaks the "color barrier here most likely) so that you would likely get integrated baseball, but it'd be a case of 1950s baseball for several decades starting in the 1910s. (Only a few per team, some not having them at all, etc.) Torrienti was quite light skinned and would be a good test case; McGrtaw had a ogn list he kept of players he wanted to sign.
 
Also, Yes, segregated schools, railroad cars, et cetera are different from interracial sex/interracial marriage bans; however, once Blacks are (thankfully) assumed to be good enough to marry Whites, it wouldn't be too much of a logical extension to say that Blacks are likewise good enough to attend school, use railroad cars, et cetera together with Whites.

Lets not forget that Plessey was 7/8 white, mudying these specific waters.

That said, I really dont think it will be as hard to implement as others do. It won't be so much about the feds forcing southern businesses to not discriminate... I doubt that mindset is remotely plausible in that century. The way such a ruling would be enforced is bu preventing southern states from forcing their business to discriminate.

The feds aren't going to waste their time in this era by going into saloons and train cars and theaters and telling them they have to allow blacks to sit with whites. They're going to go after the states that punish those business that don't segregate.

What this will ultimately mean is that, while such a ruling would still piss off plenty in the South, every time the Feds enforce it (and lets be honest, it will be intermittent, at best), they will be coming to the defense of some business that is being fined or therwise penalized by the local government. If its a big national concern, like a railroad, its likely to piss off the locals to some degree. On the other hand, if the Feds are defending some local business, they're coming to the defense of a member of whatever community is in question. There's a lot more nuance there.

I have to say, it actually sounds to me like it would help make the transition to full civil rights mich more gradual and smooth. Might not shorten the period much, but I think it would help.

Only problem is the majority was not exactly slim on this decision.
 
Wasn't Plessy at the tail end of Redemption? It's kind of like asking what if D-Day failed, the war had been pretty much won by racism at that point it was just a question of what the final settlement would be.

The law isn't magic, it's whatever the law enforcers say it is. A supreme court decision would have affected nothing.
 
Also, what stops the Klan or whoever from intimidating business into maintaining Jim Crow off the record? Hard to stop when most people on the ground probably agreed with them.
 
Also, what stops the Klan or whoever from intimidating business into maintaining Jim Crow off the record? Hard to stop when most people on the ground probably agreed with them.
Nothing, really.
But the point is: if a private business likes to bear the cost of separate-but-equal, they could do it. But if Plessy v. Ferguson forbids State mandated segregation, then private businesses are free to make exceptions from segregation as private business decision - that segregation is, for that specific business, even more expensive than being shunned by some Whites.
Meaning that desegregation could also be done gradually, by private businesses one after one seeing from experience that letting Blacks and Whites into same businesses is cheaper... and Whites seeing that mixed-race businesses are tolerable quality but cheaper than White-only/segregated facilities. No need to repeal State laws to desegregate.
 
Lets not forget that Plessey was 7/8 white, mudying these specific waters.

That said, I really dont think it will be as hard to implement as others do. It won't be so much about the feds forcing southern businesses to not discriminate... I doubt that mindset is remotely plausible in that century. The way such a ruling would be enforced is bu preventing southern states from forcing their business to discriminate.

The feds aren't going to waste their time in this era by going into saloons and train cars and theaters and telling them they have to allow blacks to sit with whites. They're going to go after the states that punish those business that don't segregate.

What this will ultimately mean is that, while such a ruling would still piss off plenty in the South, every time the Feds enforce it (and lets be honest, it will be intermittent, at best), they will be coming to the defense of some business that is being fined or therwise penalized by the local government. If its a big national concern, like a railroad, its likely to piss off the locals to some degree. On the other hand, if the Feds are defending some local business, they're coming to the defense of a member of whatever community is in question. There's a lot more nuance there.

I have to say, it actually sounds to me like it would help make the transition to full civil rights mich more gradual and smooth. Might not shorten the period much, but I think it would help.

Only problem is the majority was not exactly slim on this decision.

Completely agree on all points.

The biggest problem for this scenario is the composition of the court. Barring ASB mindswaps or self inserts the only way to get a SCOTUS that would be sympathetic to Plessy would be to get someone other than Harrison/Cleveland to be POTUS during the period of time in which the majority of these justices were appointed.

For example had the Republican Party nominated John Sherman, famous author of the Sherman Anti-Trust act in OTL and perhaps a bit stronger on civil rights than Harrison, and had he beaten Cleveland in 1888 he could have appointed 4 justices. Brewer would have to remain the same (his daughter would have to survive though), but the other three that voted with the majority would have to change. Together, Brewer, Harlan, and the other 3 Sherman appointments in TTL could have created a different result with a contested 5-4 ruling.

Sherman's presidency from '88-92 would certainly change more than just one Supreme Court case however.

I do wonder though, assuming that the court rules in favour of Plessy and a limited butterfly net, if the Black community might be better enabled in TTL to use the military service of Black soldiers in WWI as a lever to gain further civil rights in the 1920s?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Completely agree on all points.

The biggest problem for this scenario is the composition of the court. Barring ASB mindswaps or self inserts the only way to get a SCOTUS that would be sympathetic to Plessy would be to get someone other than Harrison/Cleveland to be POTUS during the period of time in which the majority of these justices were appointed.

For example had the Republican Party nominated John Sherman, famous author of the Sherman Anti-Trust act in OTL and perhaps a bit stronger on civil rights than Harrison, and had he beaten Cleveland in 1888 he could have appointed 4 justices. Brewer would have to remain the same (his daughter would have to survive though), but the other three that voted with the majority would have to change. Together, Brewer, Harlan, and the other 3 Sherman appointments in TTL could have created a different result with a contested 5-4 ruling.

Sherman's presidency from '88-92 would certainly change more than just one Supreme Court case however.

I do wonder though, assuming that the court rules in favour of Plessy and a limited butterfly net, if the Black community might be better enabled in TTL to use the military service of Black soldiers in WWI as a lever to gain further civil rights in the 1920s?
Would Brewer have actually voted in favor of Black rights in Plessy, though? After all, he abstained in Plessy in spite of the fact that he was not obliged to; plus, more importantly, his total record on Black civil rights cases on the U.S. Supreme Court is actually mediocre:

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1578&context=facpub

See page 321 in the link above.
 
Top