WI: Plessy beat Ferguson

What might be the long-term effects if the case of Plessy v. Ferguson had ruled in the favor of Homer A. Plessy?

Plessy_marker.jpg
 
Last edited:
The problem is you're going to have to drastically change the composition of the Supreme Court and the entire course of Reconstruction in order to change this supreme court ruling. Plessy v Ferguson didn't mark the beginning of segregation or Jim Crow but rather was a continuation of trends that go back to the Colfax Massacre and even before as Reconstruction was running out of steam.
 
Understandable. But I'm simply asking this question without any regards to a specific POD. Simply put "What changes would occur after 1896 if only the outcome of this one case was changed ?"
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Understandable. But I'm simply asking this question without any regards to a specific POD. Simply put "What changes would occur after 1896 if only the outcome of this one case was changed ?"

Simple, you would have a constitutional crisis when many southern states and a few northern states ignored the ruling. The North also had a high degree of segregation. So the Supreme court would have been fixed by impeachment, retirement, FDR like expansion, or some other means. It would be much like the Supreme court ruling today that Plessy versus Fergerson was still valid, and throwing out all the civil rights laws. The court would get fixed.

The supreme court reads the opinion polls, just like Congressmen. It can't get too far out from public opinion on major issues. It can get away with strange decision on minor issues, but not on something like race. Even something like Roe V. Wade is probably supported by 60%+ of America, and probably never was below 40%.
 
Simple, you would have a constitutional crisis when many southern states and a few northern states ignored the ruling. The North also had a high degree of segregation. So the Supreme court would have been fixed by impeachment, retirement, FDR like expansion, or some other means. It would be much like the Supreme court ruling today that Plessy versus Fergerson was still valid, and throwing out all the civil rights laws. The court would get fixed.

Actually, I'm expecting the Roberts Court to rehabilitate Plessy the first chance they get

The supreme court reads the opinion polls, just like Congressmen. It can't get too far out from public opinion on major issues. It can get away with strange decision on minor issues, but not on something like race. Even something like Roe V. Wade is probably supported by 60%+ of America, and probably never was below 40%.

I fear you have a higher opinion of the US Supreme Court than I do.

Roberts and Alito are essentially corporate shills, and their only ideology is to support the wishes and intent of the American elites. Thomas and Scalia are lunatic reactionaries. Between that four, its a powerful collective voice for what most people would call evil.
 
This might be one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this forum and that's saying something.

I'm sure I can beat it.

But seriously, the Roberts Court is unspeakably regressive. They chug a lug the crazy juice, and they spew it right out. Look at the disaster that is the Citizens United Not Timd ruling.
 

Thanos6

Banned
I'm sure I can beat it.

But seriously, the Roberts Court is unspeakably regressive. They chug a lug the crazy juice, and they spew it right out. Look at the disaster that is the Citizens United Not Timd ruling.

Oh, I don't think THAT's up for debate, at least not in my admittedly-biased mindset. The question is just HOW crazy they are, specifically, are they crazy enough to think they'd survive if they made a ruling like that.
 
Maybe some inconvenient justice or two dies or retires earlier, leading to a different outcome?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

The decision was 7-1, so you'd need more than one or two though.

You'd need 3 to be exact...as you could conceivably butterfly away the illness of David Brewer's daughter with an earlier POD. This got me thinking...

Admittedly it's a stretch but it isn't impossible

Let's say that after his first term, Cleveland notices a soreness on the upper part of his mouth. After consulting his doctors they discover that it's an abnormal growth and Cleveland opts to remove it. Unfortunately, in TTL the operation goes awry and Cleveland dies shortly thereafter due to complications from the surgery.

Furthermore you'd have to give Harrison and the GOP a firmer commitment to Civil Rights in order to have Harrison appoint the requisite number of judges. If you give Harrison all of his OTL picks in addition to the 2 in Cleveland's 2nd term he'd appoint 6 judges before Plessy v. Ferguson. Assuming all of them are pro-civil rights that means you could have a 7-2 result (Harrison's picks + Harlan v. the rest). It's possible, but the trick is getting the GOP to actually push for civil rights instead of try halfheartedly to keep the African-American vote.
 
Last edited:
You'd need 3 to be exact...as you could conceivably butterfly away the illness of David Brewer's daughter with an earlier POD. This got me thinking...

Admittedly it's a stretch but it isn't impossible

Let's say that after his first term, Cleveland notices a soreness on the upper part of his mouth. After consulting his doctors they discover that it's an abnormal growth and Cleveland opts to remove it. Unfortunately, in TTL the operation goes awry and Cleveland dies shortly thereafter due to complications from the surgery.

Furthermore you'd have to give Harrison and the GOP a firmer commitment to Civil Rights in order to have Harrison appoint the requisite number of judges. If you give Harrison all of his OTL picks in addition to the 2 in Cleveland's 2nd term he'd appoint 6 judges before Plessy v. Ferguson. Assuming all of them are pro-civil rights that means you could have a 7-2 result (Harrison's picks + Harlan v. the rest). It's possible, but the trick is getting the GOP to actually push for civil rights instead of try halfheartedly to keep the African-American vote.


You also still have to get Harrison reelected.

The Democrats won a crushing victory in the 1890 midterms, so are odds on favourites to win in 1892 - with or without Cleveland.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I fear you have a higher opinion of the US Supreme Court than I do.

Roberts and Alito are essentially corporate shills, and their only ideology is to support the wishes and intent of the American elites. Thomas and Scalia are lunatic reactionaries. Between that four, its a powerful collective voice for what most people would call evil.

I am not sure it is such a high opinion. I am simply saying that the Supreme court tends not to rule something unconstitutional without 40% public support, and prefers 60%, if the issue is high profile, high emotion.

Marriage is a good example. The 1st and 14th amendment are well established. I can see gay marriage being declare a constitutional right if Obama could appoint enough justices, after all, the restriction on gay marriage are mostly for religious reasons, and there is the equal protection clause. But they would never even here a case on having multiple wives. IMO, the reason for the difference is Gay Marriage has well above 40% support, and multiple wives has single digit support. But logically, they are the same, banned because of religious beliefs of the majority.

I think the serious of decisions where Puerto Rico is given a different status than Arizona and New Mexico is another example the court following public opinion.

Now on minor things, the justices seem to delight on making odd decisions like a corporation is a person. It is a bit hard to find that in the constitution.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Furthermore you'd have to give Harrison and the GOP a firmer commitment to Civil Rights in order to have Harrison appoint the requisite number of judges. If you give Harrison all of his OTL picks in addition to the 2 in Cleveland's 2nd term he'd appoint 6 judges before Plessy v. Ferguson. Assuming all of them are pro-civil rights that means you could have a 7-2 result (Harrison's picks + Harlan v. the rest). It's possible, but the trick is getting the GOP to actually push for civil rights instead of try halfheartedly to keep the African-American vote.

It would be an interesting TL.

IMO, even with more pro-civil rights justices on the court, you would not get a straight up different decision, they would be more likely to write a longer opinion that included lots of test on what was "equal". Then there would be a long series of legal battles dealing with bathrooms being dirtier, smaller seats in black sections of railroad cars, and the use of the commerce clause.
 
I am not sure it is such a high opinion. I am simply saying that the Supreme court tends not to rule something unconstitutional without 40% public support, and prefers 60%, if the issue is high profile, high emotion.

I don't know that I would trust the tides of general public opinion in America to read the Roberts court.

I would agree that they tend to cleave strongly to the views of what they perceive as their social/economic constituency (their "masters" to use a descriptive term), but I believe that this constituency is both relatively tiny and extremely unrepresentative of American society at home.

The Roberts Court is the court of the rulers, not the ruled.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
This might be one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this forum and that's saying something.

Calling it ridiculous in a political tactic, nothing more. Frankly, at this point in history, with the Voting Rights Acts coming under political assault by republicans constantly, I think it's fair....and more importantly fair minded...to allow open discussion on where people stand on the issue of what rights are and are not tied to skin color.
 
Calling it ridiculous in a political tactic, nothing more. Frankly, at this point in history, with the Voting Rights Acts coming under political assault by republicans constantly, I think it's fair....and more importantly fair minded...to allow open discussion on where people stand on the issue of what rights are and are not tied to skin color.

Is "extremely hyperbolic" or "dubious connection to reality" or "paranoid" better than "ridiculous"?

Furthermore, if the Voting rights Act is repealed tomorrow, that doesn't mean that non-whites lose their right to vote. In Georgia at least, the argument is that it is no longer necessary to have the Justice Department pre-approve everything, which does take time:

http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/georgia-seeks-to-strike-1209979.html

Furthermore, I could make the argument that you're claiming it's fair and fair-minded is nothing more than a political tactic, as well as a case of "it's not right for you to criticize me, but it's okay for me to criticize you."
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
So, you belive if the Voting Rights Act is repealed, there will be no orchistrated campaign to disenfranchise colored voters launched by the southern governments?
 

BlondieBC

Banned
So, you belive if the Voting Rights Act is repealed, there will be no orchistrated campaign to disenfranchise colored voters launched by the southern governments?

No more in than in the states not covered by the Voting Rights act. Gerrymander is a MA term after all.
 
It would be an interesting TL.

IMO, even with more pro-civil rights justices on the court, you would not get a straight up different decision, they would be more likely to write a longer opinion that included lots of test on what was "equal". Then there would be a long series of legal battles dealing with bathrooms being dirtier, smaller seats in black sections of railroad cars, and the use of the commerce clause.


It could be done, but would be difficult. I dont think the commitment was there and even if the Court ruled differently, it would require massive changes to the US for it to stick. Look at the problems after Brown vs Bd of Ed in the 1950's, the riots in the 60s, and the busing problems in Boston in the 1970's.

Perhaps some big event like a black man saving Lincoln from Booth shooting him and becoming a national hero or a civil war which was even bloodier leaving the south with fewer white men and less power.
 
Easy enough without Clevelabd and Harrison. Most likely this leads to segregation being more like discrimination of Mexicans out West, but Jim Crow was formally race neutral. The South has a much harder job with a sterner judiciary, and segregation will not be as thorough.

The real butterfly is when a President who cares about Civil Rights reaches the opportunity to do so, but of course the Senate is the most important chess board there.
 
Top