Golub, Mark. "Plessy as "Passing": Judicial Responses to Ambiguously Raced Bodies in Plessy v. Ferguson." Law & Society Review, 39, no. 3 (2005): 563-600.
Synopsis
Homer Plessy’s decision to purchase a ticket as a white man, and to later confess that he is indeed black, was part of “a test case” conducted by the Creole community of New Orleans. As per the terms of the Louisiana Separate Car Act of 1890, Caucasians and persons of African descent were subject to traveling in different railway cars to serve the purposes of racial segregation. In the article, Golub quotes Plessy’s lawyer, Albion Tourgée, insisting that after generations of interracial marriages, “the preponderance of blood of one race or another, [was] impossible of ascertainment, except by [scrutiny] of pedigree” (573). Hence, it was impossible to differentiate between blacks and whites and as a result, segregation was unmanageable (573). About Plessy's situation, Tourgée insisted that his client could not be wrong because the racial affiliations that were crucial to the Louisiana Separate Car Act of 1890, were impossible to determine. From that, a question emerged; should the benefits of whiteness extend to those who possess African blood but have Caucasian features? The pure Caucasians said no, but the Creoles of New Orleans had a different answer. Naturally, Plessy sought to respond to the posed question, and the fact that Plessy’s appearance was similar to a white American’s made him the most eligible candidate for their “test case” in challenging the Louisiana law (563-564).
The problem was, the situation was no longer a matter of society but one of the Supreme Court. For that reason, Golub asserts that a focus on Homer Plessy’s racial ambiguity and its place within the Supreme Court’s decision portrays the Court's larger role in structuring the politics of race in America” (564). Accordingly, the author’s study of Plessy revolves around the role of the judiciary in the construction of racial hierarchies in American societies by late nineteenth century (563). In his views, the “passing” of Plessy (and probably that of other mixed race citizens) as a white individual created disturbances within the State’s racial and legislative spheres as they challenged the physical distinctions that governed segregation laws in the same (565). In other words, white supremacy ideologies were unsustainable when it was impossible to differentiate the Caucasians from the coloreds and just as the white community was aware of the same, so was the law. Consequently, Golub writes that the legal discussions that surrounded Plessy are of the utmost importance for the understanding of the racial classifications that defined the societies of the United States. Apparently, if different doctrines governed the communities and the law, then the foundations from which the Supreme Court stemmed its decision would have been unstable and the final verdict would have inevitably been for the black community (567).
In Plessy as “Passing,” Mark Golub argues that the judiciary arm of government was responsible for the maintenance of racial divisions in the United States because it not only defined what it meant for one to be colored but also sustained racial disparities within the confines of the Constitution. The article gives an analysis of the segregation laws that governed American societies by the closing of the nineteenth century. While concentrating on the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Golub highlights the Creole community of New Orleans as the people who had no side in the segregated South. In other words, since they were “passing,” they were easily recognizable as whites despite the fact that they were part black; however, a single drop of “colored blood” rendered an individual unworthy of the liberties enjoyed by whites (584). With the given facts in mind, Plessy was seven-eighths Caucasian and “one-eighth African blood”, and as long as nobody knew of his parentage, he could pass off as white (564). Still, “racial segregation laws in the post-Emancipation South involved a complex interplay of class, race, and gender” and through it all, race prevailed as the most powerful of the same (569). Hence, for the mixed race individuals, claims to be white at the expense of their black heritage did not mean they would gain the acceptance of the white society. At the same time, they could not say they were black because their skin tones told a different story. Golub explains the given phenomena by writing that “there [was] a difference of opinion in the different States, some holding that any visible a mixture of black blood stamps the person as belonging to the colored race” and others disagreed (584). The people remained in need of a solution as within the context of the Southern States power entailed determining which race was of the highest class and controlling the sexual behaviors and marriages among them to prevent social mobility (579). Through Plessy, the Supreme Court took that power.
The apparent challenge that Plessy’s racial affiliation posed for the doctrines of white supremacy and its application to the concept of segregation in the Southern States creates the interesting facts of the article. The fact that Homer Plessy resembled a white person certainly puts Golub’s thesis into perspective as it also portrays the dilemma faced by the judiciary. In summation; how could segregation laws remain constant when it was apparent that skin colour could deceive the officials? Extensively, the argument of mixed race persons possessing a power that was unavailable to those who were strictly black is new and surprisingly plausible. The given affirmations are particularly evident when the author insists that “race [required] the denial of mixed race” during the reign of segregation laws (578). While giving evidence to the extension of the nature of slavery (where the status of slavery was hereditary), his assertions highlight the reasons why white men discouraged ‘their’ women from having relations with the African American men.
As a doctoral candidate in political science, Mark Golub’s expertise in American political history is evident. The article’s focus is on the role of the judicial branch of government in upholding the racial divisions in the United States; hence, his placement as an expert in political science gives him the necessary insight to analyze the subject. In the year of publication, 2005, Mark Golub was residing in Claremont, California, while teaching “politics and international relations at Scripps College” (600). It is impossible to write an in-depth and original paper on a topic relating to the history of a country that one is yet to visit. Hence, Golub’s residence in the United States is relevant to the article as there are hints of personal observations in the same. For instance, the author informs readers that the doctrine of “separate but equal” that emerged from Plessy v. Ferguson “no longer carries the force of precedent[but]the case remains relevant today” (596). For Golub to make such claims, he needs to be witness and experience complete equality in the United States. Subsequently, as evidenced by the fact that he was a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Golub is an expert in the field of American politics, and his presentations have merit.
Position
Extensively, it is no wonder that Golub’s writing depicts his dissatisfaction with the judicial system of nineteenth-century United States, and even the preceding years. The author’s analysis of Homer Plessy’s ambiguity race hints on his support for the man’s role in showing an often overlooked flaw that haunted the rules of segregation and the federal government’s support for the same. Thus, Golub does not support the “separate but equal” ruling in Plessy as he opposes the notions of black inferiority that at one time paved the way for the enslavement of the same. So far, and at a personal level, Golub’s approach to the Plessy v. Ferguson case remains unique as his analysis of the subject focuses on the role of the Supreme Court judges as well. The work is certainly more detailed that what appears in Eric Foner’s Give Me Liberty! Perhaps as whites in contemporary societies of the United States both authors manage to view the subject from fresh and different perspectives. Certainly, if they were white Southerners living in the nineteenth-century communities of the United States, the matter would have been completely different as the South supported black segregation to promote white supremacy. Accordingly, Mark Gould leaves a few trails of his personal feelings towards the covered topic in the article. For example, he states that there was a “notable difficulty in distinguishing whites from blacks in New Orleans” (574). Additionally, he claims that Justice Brown’s, one of the presiding judges in Plessy, delivery of the majority opinion has “two obvious problems” (581). Apparently, while the verdict did not address the protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Judges did not show how the Louisiana Separate Car Act was for “the good of both classes of citizens” (581). Both criticisms show Golub’s bias towards the plight of Homer Plessy and the rest of the African American community.
Critique
Based on the apparent detail that went into the publication of the article, Golub’s work targets researchers and other groups that may seek to learn more about the topic. First, the judicial system is criticized for its antics and for that reason, government officials will benefit from the work as they learn on the demerits of interfering with social factors. Secondly, the reliability of the writer and his utilization of a variety of sources to reach conclusions and validate the reasoning make the paper eligible for students in higher learning institutions. The intricate details and excessive citations of other author’s work may confuse readers as they seek to identify Golub’s voice in the work. Thus said, the articles purpose encompasses the need to highlight the inherent use of race to define the American societies long after the emancipation proclamation and the government’s role in the same. On that note, interventions to reconcile the races would have been beneficial, but one where the judiciary exercises powers at the expense of black people is abhorrent. To that end, Mark Gould succeeds in convincing his readers on the thesis of his paper and the fact that the publication year was 2005 means he has access to reliable primary and secondary sources on his research topic. Evidently Gould realizes the given assertion as the paper heavily relies on both primary and secondary sources.
Sources
Still on the same note, Gould’s use of referenced work is extensive and as already stated the author utilizes both primary and secondary sources. The subsequent works span between 1963 and 2004; hence, the works reflect both recent and older scholarship. Additionally, there is an excessive use of other analyzes as the original works appear sparingly (mostly when the author references court cases that preceded Plessy). In that sense, it is safe to assert that Mark Gould’s views are not purely his but rather, a combination of other peoples’ ideas on Plessy. Still, the combination of both work towards proving that Homer Plessy represented an enigma to the white populations of not only New Orleans but also the rest of the United States.
