Judge Harlan’s dissent was really one of a kind. Harlan
managed to almost completely flip my view on separate but equal. He was right
when he said “But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the
law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large
class of our fellow citizens”. I agree with his statement that equal is a
disguise that doesn’t mislead anyone. I thought it was cool how he talked about
Dred Scott in his dissent.
Harlan makes an incredibly good argument. Even though he wasn’t
supported by any of the other justices I believe he hoped to accomplish showing
everyone else that separate but equal was not actually separate but equal. In
1896 I have a feeling most white people would have agreed with the other
justices that agreed with separate but equal. Even though Harlan talks about
how there is nothing about color in the constitution in 1896 I am sure many
people did still not want to be around black people. However, if this happened
in 2016 everything would be different. There would be no way anyone would agree
with the other justices thinking otherwise is just outrageous. People would go
insane there would be so many riots. In this day and age, the United States has
many things in place to make sure everyone is treated equal.
Harlan’s dissent showed that there was still a way to voice
other people’s opinions than just the court. It helps show that in any case
there can be two sides to the argument. Dissents help show the other parties
side of view when it needs to be shown.