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.
Also, for some reason, Republican U.S. Presidents were very shitty at appointing pro-civil rights Justices during this time; indeed, I was thinking of this changing in this TL.
In researching my old TL "The Seventh is Made of Phantoms" I came across the same problem. Basically the problem IMO is that, the kind of pro-civil rights Justices needed for this kind of change were not exactly bountiful during the reconstruction period and that as you push past the Grant administration it becomes more and more difficult to get them through the Senate. This probably has something to do with the massive unpopularity of Reconstruction during the period.
Brewer IMO would've ruled in Plessy's favour had the court and by extension the culture been a bit more hostile to the idea of segregation which I believe is one of the implications found in the conclusion of your article (.359)
Frankly, this certainly makes sense; however, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have become extremely weak on civil rights as early as 1883--indeed, Pace v. Alabama was decided unanimously!Sorry for not making myself clear. I was thinking more along the lines of an different circumstances in an ATL in which the retreat of Northern Liberals from the race issue wasn't nearly as decisive or perhaps intensified over the latter half of the 19th century (I grant that will take a bigger POD than simply having Sherman win instead of Harrison!)
I think in such a scenario (again referring to one in which racial equality remains important to Northern Liberals) Brewer has enough pre-requisites to be swayed to a more pro-civil rights position.
Frankly, this certainly makes sense; however, the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have become extremely weak on civil rights as early as 1883--indeed, Pace v. Alabama was decided unanimously!
Also, could a surviving President Garfield have reinvigorated the Republicans' push for civil rights for Blacks? Indeed, could he use some of the political capital from public goodwill as a result of his assassination attempt to try strengthening the Republicans' weak position in the South?
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.