Exam 2 Flashcards
Somerset v. Stewart
- James Somerset, a slave, purchased by Stewart. He was taken to England, which was free. Somerset alleged illegal imprisonment. Lord Justice Mansfield ruled in Somerset’s favor. Argued that “the bonds of slavery, once severed, cannot be reattached.” Once free, always free
Stewart’s arguments in Somerset v. Stewart
1: Somerset was lost property returned to its lawful owner.
2: Freeing slaves was not in the economic self-interest of England
Consequences of Somerset v. Stewart
1: Somerset was set free
2: Somerset became binding precedent for future cases involving slaves in England and the American colony. It was applied in Winny v. Whitesides
Winny v. Whitesides
- Winny, a slave, moved from SC to IL Territory, which was free. Then moved to MO, which was not. She sued for illegal imprisonment using a MO law that allowed “poor people” to sue for freedom. MOSC ruled in her favor. Applied Somerset. “A slaveowner who takes his slave[s to a free state or territory, and the length of his stay indicates the intention to make the place his permanent resident, then his slave[s] must go free.” Three years required for permanent residence
Whitesides’ arguments in Winny v. Whitesides
1: Winny was legally purchased as a slave
2: Slavery was legal according to the laws of MO
Consequences of Winny v. Whitesides
1: Winny was set free
2: Winny became a precedent along with Somerset in MO
Dred Scott’s arguments in Scott v. Sandford
1: In light of Somerset and Winny, his residence in a free state and territory demanded his emancipation.
2: He was denied a fair trial because binding precedents were not followed in the appeal to the MOSC
Emerson’s and Sandford’s arguments in Scott v. Sandford
1: According to MO law, Scott is property and a property owner should not be unjustly deprived of property
2: Scott was not a citizen and thus had no legal right to sue
Holdings of the decision in Scott v. Sandford
1: The Founding Fathers never intended for African-Americans to be citizens (“colored people have no rights which white people are bound to respect”
2: Scott was legally a slave according to MO law and must remain a slave, which legally endorsed slavery
3: The MO compromise was overruled because it deprived a property owner of property without due process, violating the fifth amendment
National ramifications of Scott v. Sandford
1: The decision strengthened Northern opposition to slavery
2: The Democratic Party was divided among geographic lines
3: The decision emboldened Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands
4: It bolstered the nascent Republican party
The 13th amendment
Ratified 12/6/1865. Section 1: “Neither slavery nor indentured servitude, except when one is duly convicted of a crime, shall exist in the United States”
The 14th amendment
Ratified 7/6/1868. Section 1a: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.” Section 1b: “No state shall enact or enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of its citizens.” Section 1c: “No state shall seek to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Section 1d: “No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
The 15th amendment
Ratified 2/3/1870. Section 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”
The major lacuna in the Constitution until the Reconstruction amendments
The Bill of Rights only bound or restricted the power of the federal government, not the states. Constitutional protections only applied to the federal government. Most disputes between a citizen and the government are between the citizen and his state, not the federal government
The Doctrine of white supremacy
It is both an ideology and a system of organization in a society. It is the belief that whites are inherently superior in all aspects of life to all other groups, particularly African-Americans, and therefore should be dominant in any society
Racial subordination
The term that encompasses the discrimination formed in racism and the relations of power that affect racial matters. The expression of power based upon race when the dominant group places another group in a subordinate or inferior position based upon its race
The “Black Codes”
Laws passed by Southern states in 1866 and 1867 to reverse the outcome of the Civil War, to maintain the system of white supremacy, and to deny basic rights to black people as a form of “social control”
Five provisions to the “Black Codes”
1: Blacks were denied the right to own property, to enter into legal contracts, and to testify in court.
2: Vagrancy laws, which made it illegal to be unemployed, were selectively applied on blacks
3: “Convict leasing”: blacks were entrapped, convicted, and sentenced to prison. Then, they were leased to white businessmen and plantation owners
4: Debt peonage: blacks were convicted of bogus charges and sentenced to pay a fine, which they could not do. White people paid the fine and then the convicted person was obliged to pay off the debt by working for the white business owner.
5: Miscegenation. Racial segregation was enforced in the realm of marriage by criminalizing interracial marriage and sexual relations
“Slavery by another name”
Laws were selectively applied to black people. Convict leasing was hugely profitable. It cemented the perceived relation between crime and race. It was not in the economic interests of slaveowners to kill their slaves, but they could do it to convicts
Three types of rights
1: Civil rights, which include the rights to own property, to enter into legal contracts, to sue in court, and to testify
2: Political rights, which include the rights to vote, to run for office, and to serve on a jury
3: Social rights, which include the right to marry a person of one’s choice, to have an education, to choose one’s occupation, and to travel
The Doctrine of a Test Case
A person deliberately and publicly breaks a law in order to provoke a prosecution.The goal is to change the law and have the contested law struck down by a judicial opinion, changing it for future persons in similar circumstances, Used by the NAACP
Article III
The courts can only rule on “actual cases and controversies.” Requires a person to have standing to sue. and prevents a suit based on a philosophical stance
United States v. Eichman
- In 1989, TX v. Johnson considered destroying or damaging the flag to be protected by freedom of speech. Congress passed the FPA. Eichman believed the FPA was a violation of his first amendment rights. Burnt the flag to be charged. 5-4 decision held that the government cannot ban a form of speech because the government finds the speech disagreeable or offensive. Successful test case
Griswold v. Connecticut
- An 1879 CT law prohibited use of contraceptives by married couples. Griswold and Bolinger publicly distributed free contraceptives. They argued that the law violated section 1 of the fourteenth amendment which states that a state should not enforce any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of its citizens. Supreme Court agreed, rooting its opinion in the Liberty Provision of the 14th amendment and recognizing a marital right to privacy. Successful test case
Dissents in Grisworld v. Connecticut
Black: no mention of the word privacy in the Constitution
Steward: the law was “uncommonly silly,” but passed by the CT legislature, who should be the ones to repeal it
Eisenstadt v. Baird
- Building off of Griswold v. Connecticut, extended the right of privacy to unmarried couples. Successful test case
Roe v. Wade
- Further extended Griswold precedent to the right to terminate a pregnancy
Plessy v. Ferguson
- Very unsuccessful test case. Committee of Citizens tried to challenge the SCA, which segregated whites and blacks in transportation. Homer Plessy looked white, but LA considered him black. Decided in Louisiana’s favor
Plessy’s arguments in Plessy v. Ferguson
1: The SCA was a clear violation of the EPC of the 14th amendment because it treated people differently solely on the basis of race
2: Because the SCA forced blacks to travel separately, it relegated them to an inferior status in transportation and created “a new form of slavery,” thus violating the 13th amendment
Louisiana’s arguments in Plessy v. Ferguson
1: the Separate Car Act was only a “badge of inferiority” if blacks chose to construe it as such
2: The SCA was not a violation of the EPC because it prohibits exclusion, not classification or separation, based on race
Ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson
The SCA was constitutional. States can separate the races, as long as the facilities are equal.
Judge Marshall Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson
The SCA was a clear violation of the EPC because it treated people differently based on race. The law ought to be colorblind. The US is moving towards two societies: one white and one black, separate and unequal
Consequences of Plessy v. Ferguson
1: Public facilities were always separate de jure, but de facto virtually never equal
2: The decision led to legalized segregation in all aspects of Southern life, a tremendous boon to Jim Crow
Three points in Michael James Klarman’s analysis of Plessy v. Ferguson
1: Plessy did not create the oppressive conditions under which blacks lived in the South, rather, it was a reflection of the oppressing conditions that already existed
2: Plessy gave legal legitimacy to segregation and thus delayed its demise
3: The main source of oppression for Southern blacks was disenfranchisement. Without the ability to register or vote, blacks were denied a voice in the political sphere and thus had no political power
Jim Crow
Began 1870, ended 1965. A way of life for both blacks and whites in the South. Enforced by social pressures, intimidation, and violence.
Two aspects of Jim Crow
1: De jure, state and local laws mandated segregation in all aspects of Southern life.
2: De facto, it contained a set of social customs and normative behaviors of how blacks were expected to interact with whites
Social customs under Jim Crow
Blacks were to be respectful and deferential to whites at all times. A black man never shook hands with a white man. Black men had to be extremely prudent and cautious around white women. Whites and blacks were not to eat together. Blacks were to avoid PDAs. Blacks were introduced to whites, but not vice versa. Whites never used customary titles of respect when addressing blacks. When riding, blacks always sat in the backseat or in the back of a truck. Whites had the legal right of way at all intersections
Lynchings
Extrajudicial acts of violence that reinforced white supremacy. Came without trial or conviction. Performed by vigilante groups with the informal cooperation of officials. Not about justice, but about terrorizing people based on race
Four methods of disenfranchisement
1: “Grandfather clauses”: if one’s father or grandfather was eligible to vote in 1867, then that person could also vote
2: Literacy tests: a person would have to read a part of the Constitution and then explain its meaning to the satisfaction of local officials
3: Poll taxes, which were usually waived for poor whites
4: Excessive voting requirements, which included a large time of residency, information African-Americans did not have, frequent re-registration requirements, and infrequent hours of registration for African-Americans
Berea College v. Kentucky
- Berea was the only coed and integrated college in the South. KY passed the Day Law, making it illegal for any person, group or institution to teach whites and blacks together in a classroom, building, or campus. Supreme Court ruled in favor of KY, holding that the law was a reasonable exercise in state power
Berea’s arguments in Berea v. Kentucky
1: The Day Law was an unreasonable intrusion of the state into the affairs of a private college
2: The law unreasonably interfered with the mission of the college
