plessy v ferguson n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Plessy v. ferguson

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 8

Plessy v. ferguson - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Plessy v. ferguson. Celene Vasquez Period 4 February 28,2012. What are the facts?. In 1890 Louisiana passed a law requiring separate riding cars for blacks and whites on trains and separate accommodations.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Plessy v. ferguson' - hien

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
plessy v ferguson

Plessy v. ferguson

Celene Vasquez

Period 4

February 28,2012

what are the facts
What are the facts?
  • In 1890 Louisiana passed a law requiring separate riding cars for blacks and whites on trains and separate accommodations.
  • On June 7, 1892 Homer Plessy boarded a train on a “Whites Only” cart and took a seat, refusing to move when the cart officers asked him to.
  • Plessy was arrested against the new law that had been formed and was required to pay a $25 fine.
facts con t
Facts con’t.
  • The Committee of Citizens, a group formed to repeal the law supported Plessy in his argument that this law was unconstitutional to the rights guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments.
  • Thirteenth Amendment, prohibiting slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees the same rights to all citizens of the United States, and the equal protection of those rights, against the deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
  • The judge who presided over the case, John Ferguson claimed that Louisiana had the right to set these types of regulations as long as they stayed within state grounds.
the ruling
The Ruling?
  • The court ruled that the state law was in no way in violation of the 14th amendment and that no difference was seen between the riding carts and that the separation was put in place due to a public policy. Justice Brown stated, "We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
what are the facts1
What are the facts?
  • William Ferman, while commiting burglary, “accidentally” shot and killed a man.
  • Ferman expressed two separate statements on how his weapon was fired.
    • He tripped on while trying to escape out of a window and his weapon accidentally fired.
    • While trying to flee, he blindly took fire and accidentally shot the man and killed him
what was the ruling
What was the ruling?
  • Because of the two different statements Furman gave, he was found guilty because of his own ability to give a single statement on what had occurred.
  • Because of Georgia law, Furman was sentenced to death; but the sentence was never carried out.
  • In a 5-4 decision, the Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the obligation of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and was in violation of the Constitution
what effects did it have
What effects did it have?
  • The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to state that the death penalty wouldn’t be carried out in a unreliable or discriminatory manner.
  • Even though Furman didn't have the entire approval of the panel of judges, he still had a chance of winning. The Supreme Court split five to four to overturning the obligation of the death penalty in each of the consolidated cases.