{"id":6300,"date":"2021-02-19T14:43:04","date_gmt":"2021-02-19T13:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/?p=6300"},"modified":"2021-02-19T21:51:58","modified_gmt":"2021-02-19T20:51:58","slug":"larret-plessy-v-ferguson-du-18-mai-1896-iii-la-validation-de-la-segregation-par-la-cour-supreme-des-etats-unis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/?p=6300","title":{"rendered":"L’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson du 18 mai 1896 (III) : la validation de la s\u00e9gr\u00e9gation par la Cour Supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"image_pdf\"<\/a>\"image_print\"<\/a><\/div>

Pour assurer la d\u00e9fense d’Homer Plessy devant la Cour supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis, Albion W. Tourg\u00e9e fait appel \u00e0 un ami avocat \u00e0 Washington, Samuel F. Phillips [1]<\/a>. Apr\u00e8s trois ans d’attente, l’audience de plaidoirie se tient le 13 avril 1896 et la d\u00e9cision est rendue le 18 mai 1896 [2]<\/a>. La Cour supr\u00eame juge \u00e0 une majorit\u00e9 de sept contre un le \u00ab\u00a0Separate Car Act<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb conforme \u00e0 la constitution am\u00e9ricaine. L’opinion majoritaire est \u00e9crite par le juge Henry Billings Brown, originaire du Massachusetts et l’opinion dissidente par le juge John Marshall Harlan, seul sudiste de la composition et fils d’esclavagiste [3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Photographie de Henry Billings Brown, issue de ses m\u00e9moires publi\u00e9es en 1915 (\u00ab\u00a0Memoir of Henry Billings Brown, late justice of the Supreme court of the United States<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Le juge Brown \u00e9carte tr\u00e8s vite dans sa motivation une inconstitutionnalit\u00e9 du \u00ab\u00a0Separate Car Act<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb par rapport au treizi\u00e8me amendement \u00e0 la constitution, qui abolit l’esclavage\u00a0[4]<\/a>. Il \u00e9carte \u00e9galement toute violation du quatorzi\u00e8me amendement \u00e0 la constitution. S’il reconna\u00eet que le quatorzi\u00e8me amendement vise \u00e0 assurer l’\u00e9galit\u00e9 juridique des citoyens devant la loi, il consid\u00e8re que celui-ci n’a pas vocation \u00e0 faire dispara\u00eetre les diff\u00e9rences fond\u00e9es sur la couleur de la peau, \u00e0 garantir une \u00e9galit\u00e9 sociale ou un \u00ab\u00a0m\u00e9lange des deux races\u00a0\u00bb dans des conditions insatisfaisantes pour chacune [5]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Selon l’opinion majoritaire, la s\u00e9paration des citoyens dans les transports ferroviaires\u00a0 en fonction de leur couleur de peau ne marque pas une inf\u00e9riorit\u00e9 particuli\u00e8re d’une race par rapport \u00e0 une autre [6]<\/a>. Le juge Brown rel\u00e8ve que chaque passager, quel que soit le wagon o\u00f9 il est affect\u00e9, b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie de prestations de m\u00eame qualit\u00e9 [7]<\/a>. Il qualifie donc le \u00ab\u00a0Separate Car Act<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb de \u00ab\u00a0loi raisonnable\u00a0\u00bb fond\u00e9e sur des usages et coutumes du peuple, et visant \u00e0 favoriser le confort de chacun et le maintien de la tranquillit\u00e9 publique [8]<\/a>. C’est cette position (\u00ab\u00a0s\u00e9par\u00e9 mais \u00e9gaux\u00a0\u00bb) qui va permettre de valider pendant des dizaines d’ann\u00e9es la s\u00e9gr\u00e9gation aux Etats-Unis.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Photographie de John Marshall Harlan, prise entre 1890 et 1910, Library of Congress<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

John Marshall Harlan est le seul juge \u00e0 s’opposer \u00e0 cette d\u00e9cision. Pour lui, le \u00ab\u00a0Separate Car Act<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb a pour cons\u00e9quence de restreindre la libert\u00e9 des citoyens de se d\u00e9placer comme ils le souhaitent. Il rappelle que la constitution am\u00e9ricaine ne fait aucune distinction entre les citoyens en fonction de leur couleur de peau ou de leur classe sociale, et exclut la possibilit\u00e9 de castes [9]<\/a>. La s\u00e9paration \u00e9voqu\u00e9e implique \u00e0 son sens de mani\u00e8re claire une discrimination raciale. Il souligne d’ailleurs que l’objectif du \u00ab\u00a0Separate Car Act<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb n’est pas tant d’exclure les blancs des wagons r\u00e9serv\u00e9s aux noirs que d’exclure les noirs des wagons r\u00e9serv\u00e9s aux blancs. Il \u00e9voque le risque que ce type de s\u00e9paration s’\u00e9tende \u00e0 d’autres lieux, comme les rues dont un c\u00f4t\u00e9 serait r\u00e9serv\u00e9 aux personnes blanches et l’autre aux personnes noires mais aussi \u00e0 d’autres types de discriminations (citoyens am\u00e9ricains natifs par rapport aux citoyens am\u00e9ricains naturalis\u00e9s, citoyens protestants par rapport aux citoyens catholiques) [10]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Lorsqu’elle est rendue, cette d\u00e9cision n’est pas une surprise. Elle valide une s\u00e9gr\u00e9gation qui est largement accept\u00e9e, et consid\u00e9r\u00e9e, selon les termes du juge Brown, comme \u00e9tant \u00ab\u00a0dans dans la nature des choses\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0[11]<\/a>. Les arguments d\u00e9velopp\u00e9s dans l’opinion majoritaire reposent sur des pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s racistes partag\u00e9s par une grande partie de la soci\u00e9t\u00e9. Il faudra attendre 1954 pour voir un revirement de la Cour supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis concernant la question de la s\u00e9gr\u00e9gation raciale. Dans l\u2019arr\u00eat Brown v. Board of Education<\/em> du 17 mai 1954, elle revient sur la doctrine \u00ab\u00a0s\u00e9par\u00e9s, mais \u00e9gaux\u00a0\u00bb et d\u00e9clare la s\u00e9gr\u00e9gation raciale des \u00e9tablissements scolaires contraire au quatorzi\u00e8me amendement de la constitution [12]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

1. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir l’ouvrage \u00ab\u00a0Separate: The Story of Plessy v. Ferguson, and America’s Journey <\/em>from Slavery to Segregation<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0, de<\/span> Steve Luxenberg, 2019, chapitre 21<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir la page consacr\u00e9e \u00e0 l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> sur le site oyez.org<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir Steve Luxenberg, 2019, chapitre 22 : \u00ab\u00a0<\/span>The Southerner, the son of a Kentucky slaveholder, saw the case in a practical and historical context that none of his Northern colleagues seemed to grasp. \u201cIn my opinion\u00a0\u00bb, he wrote, \u201cthe judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case.<\/em>\u201d ; l’article The Constitution, Civil Liberties and John Marshall Harlan<\/em>, de Florian Bartosic, Kentucky Law Journal, 1958, volume 46, num\u00e9ro 3, page 422 : \u00ab\u00a0All the Justices on the Court except Harlan were either born in the North or appointed to the bench from that part of the country. An ex-slave-owner, who had at one time protested against the abolition of slavery by federal authority, he alone dissented, and he did so with both indignation and eloquence<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

4. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir le d\u00e9tail sur l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a>\u00a0sur le site Legal Information Institute (LII)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguish d from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

6. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0We consider the u derlying 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\u00a0\u00bb<\/em>.<\/p>\n

7. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a>\u00a0: \u00ab\u00a0So, where the laws of a particular locality or the charter of a particular railway corporation has provided that no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color, we have held that this meant that persons of color should travel in the same car as white ones, and that the enactment was not satisfied by the company providing cars assigned exclusively to people of color, though they were as good as those which they assigned exclusively to white persons. Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

8. [\u2191]<\/a> Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order. Gauged by this standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is unreasonable<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

9. [\u2191]<\/a> Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guarantied by the spreme law of the land are involved<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

10. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0If a state can prescribe, as a rule of civil conduct, that whites and blacks shall not travel as passengers in the same railroad coach, why may it not so regulate the use of the streets of its cities and towns as to compel white citizens to keep on one side of a street, and black citizens to keep on the other? Why may it not, upon like grounds, punish whites and blacks who ride together in street cars or in open vehicles on a public road or street? Why may it not require sheriffs to assign whites to one side of a court room, and blacks to the other? And why may it not also prohibit the commingling of the two races in the galleries of legislative halls or in public assemblages convened for the consideration of the political questions of the day? Further, if this statute of Louisiana is consistent with the personal liberty of citizens, why may not the state require the separation in railroad coaches of native and naturalized citizens of the United States, or of Protestants and Roman Catholics?<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

11. [\u2191]<\/a> Voir l’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson<\/em><\/a> : \u00ab\u00a0The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguish d from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.<\/p>\n

12. [\u2191]<\/a>\u00a0 Voir le d\u00e9tail sur l’arr\u00eat Brown v. Board of Education <\/em><\/a>sur le site Legal Information Institute (LII)<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pour assurer la d\u00e9fense d’Homer Plessy devant la Cour supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis, Albion W. Tourg\u00e9e fait appel \u00e0 un ami avocat \u00e0 Washington, Samuel F. Phillips [1]. Apr\u00e8s trois ans d’attente, l’audience de plaidoirie se…<\/p>\n

Lire la suiteL’arr\u00eat Plessy v. Ferguson du 18 mai 1896 (III) : la validation de la s\u00e9gr\u00e9gation par la Cour Supr\u00eame des Etats-Unis<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-actualite","category-etats-unis","category-histoire","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6300","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6300"}],"version-history":[{"count":44,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6300\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6408,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6300\/revisions\/6408"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/loiseaumoqueur.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}