Major Landmark Decisions - Essay Example

1 Landmark Decisions The Enabling Act of 1820 represented a win, win, situation for most of the parties directly involved; Missouri entered the union as they had petitioned, with no conditions or restrictions on their status, and the anti-slavery proponents were reasonably assured that slavery would not encroach on the neighboring territories. Additionally Maine was admitted as a free state, so the Senate remained equally stacked between free and slave states. Ostensibly, the line drawn at 36 degrees 30 feet of the territories acquired in the Louisiana Purchase would forever preclude slavery from existing within their boundaries. Three decades later, on May 30, 1854, Congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the controversy over slavery in the territories was reopened. Congress tried repeatedly to organize a single territory for the area west of Missouri and Iowa, but was unsuccessful. Stephen O. Douglas of Illinois introduced a bill dividing the land into two territories. His proposal left the issue of free state or slave state up to the people. Thus, ushering in the concept of “popular sovereignty”. Paul Finkelman in Dred Scott v. Sanford, A Brief History with Documents, describes the debates, the bickering and how the displeasure fermented among the pro and anti-slavery proponents, as the residents of Kansas became violently divided over the free state or slave state issue. He goes on to describe how the concept of “popular sovereignty”, was proving to be a nemesis, as the pro slavery and anti slavery proponents engaged each other in many guerilla warfare battles. He speaks of how Kansas became known as “bleeding Kansas”. (Finkelman) 2 The pro slavery elements controlled the legislature in Le Compton, while the free state settlers controlled and established an external government in Topeka. The Le Compton constitution was designed in October-November 1957, its purpose was to bring Kansas into the United States as a slave state. When it was presented to the electorate in 1857, the free state proponents boycotted the election and the measure won at the polls. However, when it was presented to the legislature, the constitution did not receive a favorable vote. In 1858, the measure was presented again to the Kansas voters, and this time the pro slavery advocates boycotted the election, the Le Compton Constitution was defeated at the polls. The issue was so divisive until it was issued a writ of centorari by the Supreme Court of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The concept of “popular Sovereignty”, though not coined by Chief Justice Taney, it was totally in line with many of his previous rulings, as he firmly exhibited a leaning in the direction of greater local control. This idealistic stance ran totally counter to the spirit and intent of the U. S. Constitution. To be sure it was not in accord with the body politic of the court during the 36 year tenure of former Chief Justice John Marshall’s’ tenure. The court of Chief Justice Taney also issued a writ of Centorari to hear Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857). Initially Dred Scott filed a battery case against his owner in favor of himself and his infant daughter, which spawned the relationship with his lawyer. “Sanford admitted he had ‘gently laid his hands upon Scott’, and claimed he had the ability to do so because Scott was legally his property”. (Finkleman) Scott first brought suit in 1846 against Emerson’s widow. Claiming he was free by reason of his 3 residence in a free territory. Thought the Missouri Supreme court ruled against him, Mrs. Emerson eventually transferred ownership of Scott to her brother, who resided in New York. “Scott again petitioned the federal court, claiming this time, he should be free, based on the diversity of state citizenship Federal district Judge Robert W. Wells first had to determine whether he had jurisdiction that allows citizens of different states to sue each other in federal court in some circumstances. Scott claimed he was a citizen of Missouri and the defendant was a citizen of New York. Sanford disagreed in a plea of “abatement”. Claiming that Scott, because he was black, could not be a citizen of Missouri, and that the federal court had no jurisdiction. Wells rejected the plea of abatement, even if Scott did not have full political or legal rights he had the ability to bring suit in federal court”. (Finkleman) In 1854, the court found that Scott was Sanford’s slave. “An appeal was made to the U. S. Supreme court in December 1854, arguing that Judge Wells erred in charging the jury that Scott was not entitled to freedom”. (Finkelman) The Supreme Court heard the case in its 1856-57 calendar. There was much debate and anticipation surrounding the cases of the Kansas- Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott case. Finkelman point out that president elect Buchanan wrote his friend, Supreme Court associate Justice, John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided before his inauguration in March. Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a decision that put the slavery issue beyond the real of political debate. Buchanan later pressured Justice Grier, a northerner, to join the southern majority to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines. By present day standards, any such correspondence would be 4 considered to be improper ex-parte contact with the court; even under the more lenient standards of the century, political pressure applied to a member of a sitting court would have been viewed as improper”. (Finkelman) In view of the Missouri compromise, many in the legal community were confident that the court of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would judiciously follow the inherent reasonableness of the constitution, thereby upholding the Missouri compromise and following the reasonable construct of the constitution, the court would provide a favorable opinion in the Dred Scott case”. (Quinn) The Taney court reached a 7 – 2 decision in the Dred Scott case and Chief Justice Taney wrote the majority opinion, which has been labeled as the most bone headed decision in the annals of jurisprudence. Finkelman points out that “ the predominately pro slavery court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, went beyond precedent-and beyond the constitution-in an attempt to settle the vexing issue of slavery, once and for all, in the south’s favor “. (Finkelman) He further stated, “ the court rested its decision on two grounds; first, that congress only had limited powers to legislate for the territories and second that the fifth amendment barred only law that would deprive a slaveholder of his property, i.e., his salves, because he had brought them into free territory. The court went on to state- although the issue was not before the court – that the territorial legislatures had no power to bar slavery”. (Finkleman) Finkelman points out that, while Dred Scott was an individual seeking his freedom, “the historical impact of the Dred Scott decision went far beyond the issue of one man’s freedom”. (Finkelman) “The 7 – 2 decision of the court and Taney’s majority opinion 5 carried far reaching implications and affects for all Africans (free and slave) and further gave slaveholders absolute domain over Africans. Moreover, that the decision went on to uphold the rule that Africans (slave or free) did not have any “protected rights” via the U. S. Constitution, as did white citizens”. It is clear that as Chief Justice Taney elucidated the reasons why slaves could not be classified as citizens, he enumerated the reasons why whites were fearful of blacks, i.e., having mobility to travel freely as they pleased, being able to voice their opinions on political issues and if they were citizens, they would be able to own guns. These were fears, which could only be addressed through strict suppression” (Quinn) “This decision was a culmination of what many at the time considered was a push to expand slavery. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the long standing Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the South and all new states would be admitted as free states. Thus, Democratic party politicians sought repeal of the Missouri compromise and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which naturally ended the “compromise”. This act permitted each new admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or a free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Taney had provided unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories”(Finkelman). Democrats like Senator Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana were quick to defend the courts decision: “This man (Taney) has been charged by the Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) with as corrupt coalition with the Chief Magistrate of the Union. He 6 charges in fact…that the supreme magistrate of the land, and the judges of the highest court, and the pasties of the Dred Scott case, got up a mock trial; that they were all in collusion to cheat the country…what are the facts? Men should be little careful in making such accusations as these; unless, indeed they care not whether they be true or false…” (Benjamin) The Republicans were not pleased with the decision of the court and did not lay dormant as the Democrats took shots at their intentions. Taney did not immediately release a copy of his majority opinion, but associate Justice Benjamin Curtis did immediately release his dissent. It provided fuel for much of the Republican retort: The New York Tribune pronounced that, “the decision, we need hardly say, is entitled to just as much moral weight as would be the judgment of a majority of those congregated in any Washington bar-room”. (NY Tribune) The dissent of Justice Benjamin was somewhat surprising. His fellow Bostonians had previously dubbed him the “slave catching judge”. The irony of Justice Curtis was that President Fillmore had appointed him to the court because Benjamin had been a supporter of the fugitive slave laws and he had prosecuted a number of abolitionists. Curtis’ dissent, was widely read in the north, was used by some northern legislators as the basis for resolutions opposing Taney’s opinion. Curtis’ opinion became a political document during the elections of 1858 and 1860, with Republicans printing it in whole or in part. His dissent does not endorse racial equality and furthermore argues that the states are free to deny citizenship to blacks”. (Dissent) This decision created such a gulf in American political opinion until the level of 7 sectionalism reached a point of paranoia and distrust. The gulfs were so and varied and broad until they spawned political campaigns and even the publication of books. Race relations were caught up in the irrepressible conflict argument and no one issue or circumstance led to the civil war. It was a group of complex issues of politics, competing understandings of federalism, slavery, expansionism, sectionalism, economics, modernization, and competing nationalism of the antebellum period. Prior to the civil war, America did not have any race relations, it was mostly a one- sided oppressive situation, particularly in the south. After the Emancipation Proclamation, but not until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments did the concept of “race Relations”, take on any significant meaning in America. During the 1860’s it was a new concept which was still imbued with oppressive practices and drenched in “know your place”. Race relations was in its infancy and heavily paternalistic. Plessy v. Ferguson The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added to the constitution to abolish slavery and to ensure Black Americans the full enjoyment of the rights of citizenship. However, conferring rights upon Blacks was no simple matter, particularly given that many white southerners hoped to proscribe in proscribe in practice much of what former slaves had won in theory. For example, in the post-Reconstruction period, southern state governments established grandfather clauses, poll taxes, and other expedients to prevent blacks from exercising the franchise guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. (Thomas) 8 The general complacency of white northerners compounded the problem; racism was not an exclusively southern characteristic, and following decades of anti slavery agitation, and more than a decade of reconstruction, many northern white were willing to let the south devise its own solution to the “race question”, provided that the solution was constitutional”. (Thomas) W. E. B Dubois first made this point in his submission to segregation and black disenfranchisement speech. Additionally as Thomas mentions in his book, this view was also shared by liberal minister Henry Field of Massachusetts. Constitutionality, however is a matter of interpretation. And this is precisely what we will examine in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Firstly in setting the stage let us establish the fact that the United States Supreme Court was the supreme culprit in derailing black advantages in some of its rulings; it held that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was unconstitutional and also ruled that the 14th Amendment did not prohibit individuals and private organizations from discriminating on the basis of race. (South) On June 7, 1892, a 30-year-old colored shoemaker named Homer Plessy challenged the 1890 Louisiana law requiring blacks to ride in separate rail cars. He was jailed for sitting in the “white car” of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was only one- eights black and seven-eights white, but under Louisiana Law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the “colored” car. Plessy went to court and argued, in Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, that the separate car act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the constitution. The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the separate car act “unconstitutional” on trains that traveled through several states” In Plessy’s case, 9 however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated within Louisiana. (let us be sure that we have this important point of distinction so we remain on the same page; the train which Plessy boarded only ran a local route within the state of Louisiana) He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car. Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld the Ferguson decision. In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessys’ case and found him guilty once again. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote the majority opinion for the court: First the Supreme Court did not see a basis for the 13th Amendment citing. Justice Brown noted that the 13th Amendment was a statute which draws the distinction between the color of the two races. This writer thought this to be a strange thing to say. The constitution is colorless. The 13th amendment was added to the constitution to provide citizenship for the newly emancipated slave, since they had been consciously omitted (as were women) from the original document. It was discovered after Emancipation that the newly freedmen needed guarantees if they were going to begin to co-exist on a level playing field. It was not as Justice Brown points out a discerning measure, but a blending amendment. Justice Brown further noted that “the 14th amendment was intended 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 enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms satisfactory to either”. (Brown) It is said that convoluted logic and hobgoblin are the products of small 10 minds…Justice Brown qualifies for the distinction of pea brain. He ventures off on a long and elaborate, albeit narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment and interprets it exclusively in his own domain. He never bothers to venture outside of himself and his personal racist experiences. The 14th Amendment had been a part of the constitution for a little more than 28 years when the court heard Plessy and yet, there seems to have been a struggle on the part of Justice Brown to read the meaning and spirit of the law, as its framers had intended it to be read. Moreover, he chose the convenient interpretation, which in my opinion was in accord with “popular sovereignty”, and not on the basis of the rights of Mr. Plessy and the entire class of people so affected. The court refused to grasp the concept which Mr. Plessy was attempting to convey. Which was as per the 14th Amendment, he and any other person who sought to travel via a public conveyance, reserves the right to sit anywhere he chooses or on any seat which is available, as per his constitutional privileges and immunities, guaranteed him in the body of the constitution and the spirit of the 14th Amendment. Justice Brown cites numerous cases from a number of states and within a number of municipalities wherein “separate but equal” provisions have been afforded the riding public on public conveyances. His point is that it works in all of these places as being the law of the various legislators and the obligation of the conveyor and the public to adhere. Moreover, he mentions, a case in Mississippi where the legislature had mandated that “separate but equal” cars be made available to accommodate the different races of the riding public, and the conveyor had not complied and was summarily fined for his non compliance of the legislative statute. Brown is hereby implying that everyone is 11 being held to the letter of the law. But in a broader sense what he is saying is that, the state legislatures are bending over backwards to avoid as much as possible the commingling of the races. I am reminded of a quote which I will attempt to paraphrase; “because everyone is doing it wrong, doesn’t make it right, and because no one is doing it right, does not make it okay”. (Emerson) Justice Brown is attempting to convince everyone that this is the way everyone is doing it, so this is the way it should be done. He never once takes into account the human element and the demeaning nature of the act. We are all aware that there are good laws which have been thoroughly reasoned out to provide the public good for a majority of the law abiding most of the time. And we also know that there have been and (even circa 2006) bad laws. We need only be reminded of the fugitive slave laws of 1850 and 1854, the black codes and of course Jim Crow laws; which Justice Brown is setting the stage to make the law of the land. Many of these black codes resurfaced during the period of reconstruction, in the unrelenting attempts of southern whites to keep the races separated, blacks oppressed, and written with the assurances which guarantees to keep blacks in their proverbial places. It is clear that Justice Brown is a proponent of this concept. In pointing to the separate accommodation circumstances which the court has dealt with previously, and is aware of its existence in many municipalities across the country, Justice Brown even venture into the area of education, and points out, that the “separate but equal” concept is serving well in this capacity, even in the schools of the nations capitol, Washington, D. C. That schools are established exclusively on this basis and further mandated that the color line will not be crossed. There is no question that the 12 attitude of white America is; Okay, we must have them among us, but we will not be compelled to have them with us. Justice Brown is further convinced that the white race is the dominant, superior race, and that this juxtaposition is the natural order of things. He further feels that if there was a proclivity to legislate social equality (which at this juncture, there was only a tendency to legislate social inequality and suppression), he feels little would become of it because in his opinion, “Blacks do not possess social capital” (Brown), which has been bestowed upon white men by white men. In the words of Justice Brown, that if a white man were placed in a totally black environment, he would lose some of his social capital for being so situated. He goes on to assert that since blacks (in his minds eye), do not possess any social capital to begin with, then there is little, if anything for the black man to lose. Does Justice Brown sound like a reasonable man who deserves to be trusted with the public good? Or does he sound like an articulate Klansman who is only wearing a black robe because it is not yet dark? Justice Brown was not a jurist who interpreted the constitution on the basis of its content, and its purposeful intent, but on the basis of his social constrict. He and other jurist like him used the constitution to further a social malignancy which decried the reasonableness on which the 14th Amendment was written and intended. Are you, do you considerer yourself to be superior and press to remain dominant by steering the law in the direction which most appropriately fits your purpose. This was not superiority, it was fear. It was not dominance, it was fraud. His narrow interpretation ushered in and coined the “separate but equal” doctrine which forged the path for Jim Crow to deposit his 13 droppings on the souls of black folk for more than seventy years. Yes, I am aware of my math, as it relates to Brown v. Board of Education. It took most institutions at least ten years after the ruling to get themselves together and comply with the law. In spite of this many Americans in their minds have still not come to grips with the fact that African Americans are as much a part of the body politic as any European. The many years of segregation and accompanying discrimination in America has left indelible scars upon both the oppressors and the oppressed. Race relations in America during the separate but equal period, stifled both opportunities and advancement, not only for blacks but for whites as well. The policies of state and local governments fostered distrust, fear, hatred. missed and unequal opportunities. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas “In 1896 the Supreme Court determined that states could legally mandate racially segregated arrangements on interstate rail lines but that barring blacks altogether from such lines would be an infringement of their constitutional rights”. (Martin). “Through the National Association of Colored People (NAACP), Legal defense Fund, a battery of lawyers commenced the work of assembling discrimination cases from around the country; the primary focus of those cases as pointed out by Waldo Martin Jr. was to secure “equalization of segregated facilities, focusing on education and pointing out the discrepancies between the funding allocated to black schools and that enjoyed by schools for white children”. (Martin) While the NAACP Defense Fund assembled cases from across the country, it was 14 headed by a young Howard University law school graduate by the name of Thurgood Marshall. It was Thurgood Marshall who later became the first African American Associate Supreme court Justice, who presented the case before the United States Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. Marshall and members of the NAACP Legal Defense team had assembled accompanying cases which exhibited to the Supreme Court a pattern of separate but unequal distribution of financial resource and physical plants. Moreover, that the current plan of doing business was not working to the benefit of those it was earmarked to provide relief too. That the practice/policy of separate but equal had denigrated into separate but unequal. Of course the prevailing theme was that a very valuable natural resource was being deprived of fertile ground to grow. As Martin points out; “ By 1954, however, with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Supreme Court had become convinced that the concept of “separate but equal” was a fallacy: Segregation itself created conditions of inequality, even where the facilities were of equal quality. As such, Plessy v. Ferguson was declared unconstitutional, and Jim Crow found itself without legal foundation”. (Martin) White supremacists snarled and stalled at the courts decision; they devised plans which discouraged the enrollment of black students; some districts implemented a voluntary desegregation plan which they dubbed ‘freedom of choice”, this plan coaxed a handful of black students to white schools, but was a long way off of accomplishing the court mandate. Southerners became so outraged with the court of Chief Justice Earl Warren until it became commonplace to find billboards branding Chief Justice Warren and his court as communists, and calling for his resignation. “Civil Rights activists in the 15 south were often branded as communists by their opponents”. (Martin) This did not deter the Warren court, the mote obstinate that southerners became, the more steadfast the court. Chief Justice Warren was so committed to removing all odious signs of past discrimination until his court was being attacked and accused of using the judiciary to mandate and i8mplement social policy. Nonetheless, when southern supremacist continued to resist the dictates of Brown I, the Warren “court issued Brown II which demanded that southern schools would be integrated with all deliberate speed” Martin) Many, but not all, black activists hoped that equality of education would be a stepping-stone to full integration in all levels of American society”. (Martin) As Martin points out in his presentation of W. E. B. Dubois, “Does the Negro need Separate Schools?” Dubois cautions that integration might ruin the chances for positive development of black economic institutions, black culture, and black identity. In his piece Dubois makes some salient observations on the downside of integration. He fully recognizes that with integration there would be little need or economic significance for duality to coexist. And even if it did, would it be viable? Dubois rightfully feared that the first to fall would be the black institutions, recognizing that in war there will be some casualties. It was necessary for the NAACP start somewhere in attacking Jim Crow and the most established institution in America where there is an ostensible shared partnership is the government’s support and commitment to support an education for all of its citizens. Moreover, there were few if any other institutions where the stakes were as high on a shared basis. It was a logical 16 choice to approach segregation from the venue of education. The Brown case by all measure is considered to be the most far reaching case in the annals of jurisprudence. It has influenced the lives of every American and will continue to be a benefit to the social, political and economic well being ad infinitum. The barriers which have been removed because of the Brown decision and the legislation which it has spawned are in and or themselves endless and are deserving of much scholarly attention. Without Brown, we would still be with Plessy and Jim Crow. Because of Brown we got the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a host of civil rights activity which have not only made things better for those directly affected, it has also had a residual impact on the rights of women. Through Brown, we are paving the way to an open society which is becoming more and more colorless each passing day. Brown was an awakening for America, the beginning of an end to a long bad dream. We can now earnestly say that every American has an open path to fully pursue an unfettered American Dream. Works Cited Benjamin, Judah, Democratic reaction to Dred Scott v. Sanford, Retrieved on line on April 13, 2006, from www.watson.org Brown, William B., Majority Opinion, Plessy v. Ferguson, Retrieved on line on April 14,2006, from www.watson.com Curtis, Benjamin, Dissent Dred Scott v. Sanford, Retrieved on line on April 12, 2006, from, www.watson.org Finkelman, Paul, Dred Scott v. Sanford A Brief History with Documents, Retrieved on line on April 15, 2006, from www.bedfordstmartins.com Martin, Wallo E., Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, A Brief History with Documents, retrieved on line on April 16, 2006, from www.bedforstmartins.com New York Tribune, Reactions to Dred Scott, retrieved on line on April 14, 2006, from www.watson.org Quinn, C. R., Vigilant Discourse, An American History; 1621-2003 Republican Reaction to Dred Scott Decision, Retrieved on line on April 13, 2006, from www.watson.org Southern Judicial Tradition, Retrieved on line on April 14, 2006, from www.history cooperative.org Thomas, Brook, Plessy v. Ferguson, A Brief History with Documents, Retrieved on line on April 16, 2006, from www.bedfordstmartins.com Read More