POLS 358

Domestic Slave Trade (1820-1839)

Slave trade from international countries was made illegal; however, slave trading within the state did not stop causing there to be slave breeding farms so that the slave population could continue.

Article I, Section 9, par. 1

African Slave Trade Migration or importation of slaves should not be prohibited by congress prior to 1808, but a duty or tax can be imposed on importation. (must not be higher than 10 dollars)

Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process asks whether the government has followed the proper procedures when it takes away life, liberty or property.

Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railroad v. Mississippi (1890)

Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway v. Mississippi was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1890. The case involved a challenge by a railroad company to a Mississippi law that required separate accommodations for white and black passengers on trains. The railroad company argued that the law violated the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, in a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Mississippi law, ruling that it did not violate the Constitution. The Court's decision in the Louisville, New Orleans & Texas Railway case was part of a broader trend of legal decisions that upheld segregation and discrimination against African Americans in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These rulings, which included the notorious "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), helped to entrench racial segregation and discrimination in American society for decades to come.

Grandfather Clause

Most Southern states passed grandfather clauses to restrict Black voting rights without directly violating the Fifteenth Amendment. In addition to the clause, poll taxes and literacy tests also prevented poor or illiterate black men from voting

Nat Turner's Rebellion (1831)

Nat Turner led a slave rebellion that killed 55-65 white people The rebellion was ended after a few days The aftermath spread fear among white slave owners and Turner was brutally mutilated and killed as a warning to other slaves The white mob and militia killed up to 120 enslaved people and free blacks in retaliation.

13th Amendment

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (Slavery is technically still legal in U.S.)

14th Amendment

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

United States v. Shipp (1906)

On February 11, 1906, a black man named Ed Johnson was found guilty in Hamilton County, Tennessee, of raping a white woman. He was given the death penalty. Johnson's attorney, Noah W. Parden, filed a writ of habeas corpus on March 3, 1906, claiming that Johnson's constitutional rights had been infringed. claiming that every Black person had been methodically left out of both the trial jury and the grand jury who were deliberating over his initial indictment. He further claimed that because his lawyer at the time had been too terrified of the mob violence threats to file motions for a new trial, a continuance, or a change of venue—all of which may have been reasonably expected in the circumstances—he had been substantively denied the right to counsel. Johnson, according to Parden, was going to lose his life without following the proper legal procedures. Whether or not these actions were in violation of his Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment? The Court ruled in favor of the United States, holding that these actions were in violation of his Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court provided that Sheriff Shipp had committed contempt of court when he disregarded his obligation to protect a prisoner under his supervision, even though he was well aware of the court's decision. Justice Holmes' decision for the court stated that it was not a party in any way that would give rise to a conflict of interest because Shipp's actions did not directly affect the justices—rather, they threatened the court's authority and ruling—and as a result, the justices were not "interested parties" in any way that would impair their ability to handle the case. Shipp's prosecution was given permission to continue.

Pace v. Alabama (1883)

Pace v. Alabama (1883) was a landmark case heard by the United States Supreme Court that dealt with the issue of interracial marriage and the constitutionality of state laws banning such marriages. The case arose from an incident in which an African American man named Tony Pace and a White woman named Mary Cox were arrested and charged with violating Alabama's anti-miscegenation law, which prohibited interracial marriage. Pace and Cox were convicted and sentenced to two years in prison. In its ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Alabama's anti-miscegenation law, holding that the law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the law applied equally to all individuals, regardless of their race, and that it did not discriminate against African Americans or any other group. The ruling in Pace v. Alabama was a setback for the civil rights movement, as it effectively sanctioned state laws banning interracial marriage and helped to institutionalize racial segregation in the United States. It was not until the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967 that such laws were struck down as unconstitutional, and the legal foundations of racial segregation began to be dismantled.

Forty Acres and a Mule

"Forty Acres and a Mule" was a promise made by the federal government to incentivize black men for enlisting in the military. however, the land was not given out to the African Americans after fighting

Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Latin: produce the body): a writ directing a person held in custody to be brought before the court to determine if he or she is being lawfully held

Military Reconstruction Acts (1876)

1. Established five military districts (quasi governments) for the ten former Confederate states and conferred the right to vote on adult black males in areas covered by the Act. The Act, which passed over President Johnson's veto, also tied admission (re-admission) to the Union to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. An Act to provide for the More Efficient Government of the Rebel States," that directed military commanders to register voters and to call for constitutional conventions 3. military commanders to remove any state or local official impairing the reconstruction process. And, on March 11, 1868, Congress passed the Fourth Reconstruction Act detailing procedures to ratify new state constitutions.

3 Levels of Scrutiny (14th Amendment Equal Protection Test)

1. Rational Relationship: Did the state have a reasonable purpose (or "rational basis") for passing the law?Is there some difference between the two classes or groups of people that makes it reasonable to treat them differently? 2. Intermediate Scrutiny: Classifications by sex are constitutional only if they serve important government objectives?Are closely and substantially related to the achievement of those objectives? 3. Strict Scrutiny: Does the state have a compelling interest in passing the law?Is the legal classification absolutely necessary to accomplish that purpose?

Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871

1870:, all citizens "shall be entitled to vote in all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." prohibited state officials from discriminating among voters on the basis of color in local elections; made bribery and intimidation of voters by individuals a crime; and outlawed conspiracies to prevent citizens from exercising federal constitutional rights. 1871: federal officials were appointed to supervise voter registration for congressional elections in areas with populations over 20,000. 1871: second enforcement act (Ku Klux Klan act): enforce Civil War Amendment's guarantees by prohibiting individuals [not just States] from denying citizens equal protection, privileges and immunities, due process, suffrage, etc.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

1st: capture runaway slaves who fled to any state (even free states) 2nd: "deliver" them before "any judge of the circuit or district courts of the U.S." 3rd: "upon proof to the satisfaction of such a judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit... judge would "give a certificate" to remove the fugitive "to the state or territory from which he or she fled" 4th: judge issues a warrant (certificate of removal) authorizing to take slave back to owner

Bill or Right (1791)

3 years after constitution Free speech, press, petition, right of assembly, and exercise of religion

Virginia Minor v. Reese Happersett (1875)

A Missouri statute that limited the right to vote to men prevented Virginia Minor from registering to vote in St. Louis in 1872. Minor and her husband filed a lawsuit against Reese Happersett, the voting registrar, alleging that she had been denied one of the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" provided by the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether or not the right of suffrage was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment? The Court ruled in favor of Happersett, holding that the right of suffrage was not protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held in its ruling that the rights and benefits of citizenship are not specified by the U.S. Constitution; hence, the enfranchisement of male citizens exclusively by individual states did not necessarily constitute a breach of the citizenship rights of female citizens.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

A San Francisco regulation from 1880 mandated that laundromats housed in wooden structures obtain a permission from the Board of Supervisors of the city. The board was in complete control of who was granted a permission. Chinese entrepreneurs did not receive a permit, despite tunning 89 percent of the city's laundry companies. When Yick Wo and Wo Lee refused to pay a $10 fine for operating washing companies without a permit, the city's sheriff, Peter Hopkins, put them in jail. Each filed a petition of habeas corpus, claiming that the ordinance's discriminatory enforcement and fine violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court of California and the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California rejected the claims of Wo Lee and Yick Wo, respectively, noting that the statute appears to be nondiscriminatory. Whether or not the unequal enforcement of city ordinance was in violation of Yick Wo and Wo Lee's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The Court ruled in favor of Yick Wo, holding that the unequal enforcement of city ordinance was in violation of Yick Wo and Wo Lee's rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court provided that that the Equal Protection Clause was violated by the law's biased enforcement even if it was written impartially. The Court stated that even though the law appears impartial in appearance, "if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution." The plaintiffs were subjected to biased enforcement.

Writ of Error

A method of appeal by which an appellate court orders a lower court to send a case to the higher court for review of alleged mistakes (errors) by the lower court. Matters of law and not of fact are reviewed. The U.S. Supreme court no longer employed this appeals method

Article V

A prohibition against amending the constitution involving the slave trade before 1808 (twenty years) No amendment which made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article

Berea College v. Kentucky (1908)

Berea College is a private liberal arts college. It was established in 1855 as a coeducational, desegregated school that accepted and treated black and white pupils equally. The Kentucky legislature passed the "Day Law" in 1904, so named after Carl Day, a Democrat from Breathitt County, Kentucky, who had introduced the bill in the House of Representatives. This law forbade any individual, group of individuals, or corporation from instructing black and white students in the same school or from operating separate branches of a school. Berea was obviously the intended target of this statute, as it was the only integrated school in Kentucky at the time (as well as the only one in the South). The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court when Berea College's challenge to the legislation was dismissed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, despite the fact that the distance provision was upheld. Whether or not the state law was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The court ruled in favor of Kentucky, holding that the state law was not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court, delivered by Justice Brewer, provided that the state had the right to forbid the college in this way because the business in dispute was chartered under Kentucky law. Although the state may not have the authority to therefore restrict the acts of private individuals, that aspect of the law was not directly under consideration and the rights and limitations applicable to individuals were not always the same as those for corporations.

Strauder v. West Virginia (1880)

Black man, Taylor Strauder who was a freed enslaved and had been convicted of murder by an all-white jury in West Virginia. Strauder argued that the law preventing African Americans from serving on juries violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Does the state law barring blacks from jury service violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Yes, not allowing blacks to serve in juries violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Strong argued that "If ...a law should be enacted excluding all white men from jury service, ...we apprehend that no one would be heard to claim that it would not be a denial of the equal protection of the laws."

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Posse Comitatus: Apprehend fugitive slaves Bystanders who refused to assist in apprehension of fugitive slaves faced six months in jail and up to 1000 dollar fine Federal commissioners receiver $5 for a "pro-slave" verdict, but $10 for decisions favorable to slave owners

Re Emmanuel (1640)

Case similar to Punch about inequalities among treatment to servants/slaves based on skin color (Europeans versus African) The court punished Emmanuel harsher than the six other white runaways who performed the same behavior. Furthermore, the burnt "R" on their cheeks indicates that they will be considered runaways for the rest of their lives. That legislation is not hesitant to impose harsher punishments on runaways.

The Extraordinary Case of Kate Brown (1868)

Catharine "Kate" Brown a Black women, and Senate employee, was forced out a white only cart in a train. Charles Sumner initiated a Senate investigation and ended up awarding her $1,500 because of the Grant given to the railroad company by Congress that stated, "that no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color."

Slave Trade Act of 1807

Chapter XXII: it is unlawful to import or bring into the U.S. or the territories thereof from any foreign kingdom, place, or country, ant negro, mulatto, or person of color, with intent to hold, sell, or dispose of such... as slave or to be held to service of labor. (emphasis added) Did not apply to internal or coastal traffic. Still allowed to sell/trade American slaves Created slave farms for breeding Profitable business in Fredericksburg Legalized rape

Writ of Certification:

Congress also provides that appellate courts may submit a writ of certification to the SC, requesting the justices to clarify or "make more certain" a point of federal law. The court receive a handful of these cases each term

McColluch v. Maryland

Congress created the Second Bank of the United States in 1816; of which Maryland placed an act to impose a tax on. James W. McCulloch refused to pay this tax. Was Congress authorized to establish the bank? Was Maryland's act an interference to Congress? Yes, although not specified, the delegated ability to tax and spend allowed for the bank to be established..Yes, because of the former, Maryland had no power to interfere and therefore did so through its act. The Court held the decisions through the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Section 8); redefining "necessary" as "appropriate and legitimate" and putting state law second to its superior federal counterpart.

The Wilmington Riot (1898)

During the Wilmington Race Riot, on November 10, 1898, scores of African-Americans were killed when white mobs, angry at what they called "Negro Rule," overthrew the elected local government and burned black-owned businesses in an affirmation of white supremacy. As detailed by Prather, Red-shirts "armed with Winchester rifles and shotguns...frightening Republicans, Fusionists, and blacks away from the polls."

Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)

Edward Prigg was convicted in Pennsylvania for trying to kidnap Margaret Morgan- an alleged fugitive slave. Although acting under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, his actions violated state law as slave catchers were not allowed to catch slaves without the approval of a magistrate. Did Pennsylvania's law violate Article IV, Section 2? Was the state's law invalid due to the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793? Yes, as the state law violated the Supremacy Clause.Yes, as the state law was inferior to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. Per StoryThe Court held the decisions through how the provision was in conflict with the federal government's Supremacy Clause; meaning that, under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, his actions in Pennsylvania were legal.

1866. Voting Rights and the KKK

Formalized terrorist groups originated during this period with similar goals of "violence, intimidation, and terror against black voters and their Republican supporters." The Klan's actions were initially directed against the Republican Reconstruction governments and their leaders. Ultimately, however, the KKK used violence and intimidation to keep African-Americans segregated and to prevent them from voting and holding office.

Article IV, Section 2, par. 3

Fugitive slave clause Slaves held to labor in one state, who decide to escape to another state, can be returned back to work in the previous state. Citizens can be in trouble if they harbored a slave to safety, even in a "free" state

United States v. Harris (1883)

Harris led an armed lynch mob into a Tennessee jail and captured four black prisoners. Though the deputy sheriff attempted to protect the prisoners, he was unsuccessful. One of the prisoners died. The United States government brought criminal charges against Sheriff Harris and others under Section 2 of the Force Act of 1871. This act made it a crime for two or more persons to conspire for the purpose of depriving anyone of the equal protection of the laws. Could the court try Harris and others under the Section 2 act? No, The Force Act was unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment only authorized Congress to take remedial steps against state action that violated the amendment. The Amendment applied only to acts of the states, not to acts of individuals.

Henry M. Turner

Henry Turner (1834-1915) was an African American preacher, politician, and military chaplain who played a prominent role in the struggle for civil rights during and after the Reconstruction era. Turner was born into slavery in South Carolina and became a minister after gaining his freedom. He quickly became a leading figure in the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church and was elected as its first bishop in 1880. Turner was also active in politics, serving as a delegate to the Georgia state constitutional convention in 1867 and later as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives and the state senate. Throughout his career, Turner was a vocal advocate for civil rights and worked to promote education, voting rights, and economic opportunities for African Americans. He also supported the emigration of African Americans to Africa as a means of escaping the racial discrimination and violence they faced in the United States. During the Spanish-American War, Turner served as a chaplain in the United States Army and was the first African American to hold that position. He continued to be active in politics and civil rights advocacy until his death in 1915, leaving behind a legacy as a pioneering African American leader and advocate for justice and equality.

Hodges v. U.S. (1906)

Hodges v. US overturned the conviction of 3 white men who drove 8 black men out of their jobs, making them unable to fulfill their labor contracts. In overturning their convictions, The Supreme Court ruled that the 13th Amendment does not guarantee work to anyone and that the states have the power to decide that on a case-by-case basis.

Re Davis 1630

Hugh Davis was whipt for abusing himself to the dishonor of god and shame of christianity by defiling his body in lying with a negro. Liking her (consensually) was not allowed, but power over her was

Re Negro John Punch (1640)

Hugh Gwyn brought back three servants from Maryland who ran away. The three servants are punished and being whipped Victor: a dutchman (working 1yr extra) James Gregory: a scotchman (working 1yr extra) John Punch: a "free" negro man. Not a slave. (Working for the rest of his life > slave)

Militia Act of 1792

Prevented Black men from fighting in the Militia, even though they've fought in prior wars. This is due to the fact that members of the Militia gain citizenship

United States v. Hiram Reese (1876)

In 1873, Reese and Foushee refused William Garner, a black man, the ability to vote in a municipal election in Kentucky. Reese and Foushee stated that Garner did not pay a $1.50 tax but Garner did attempt to pay the fee but was refused by the tax collector. Under the Enforcement Act of 1870, penalties would be associated with violations of voting rights under the 15th amendment. If an official refused to allow a citizen to fulfill a requirement for voting, the citizen could present an affidavit (written statement confirmed by oath to be used in court as evidence) that would allow him to. Reese and Foushee refused Garner's affidavit. They were then charged in violation of the Enforcement Act. In circuit court of US for the district of Kentucky, the Enforcement Act was found to be too broad and exceeding the bounds of the 15th amendment. The court then dismissed the indictments. Was the Enforcement Act of 1870 a valid exercise of Congressional power to enforce the 15th amendment? No, 8-1, The Enforcement Act of 1870 lacked the "necessary, limiting language to qualify as enforcement of the 15th amendment." Chief Justice Morrision Waite stated that the 15th amendment "does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone" but instead "prevents the States, or the US, from giving preference...to one citizen of the US over another on account of race, color, or previous servitude."

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)

In 1873, a Democratic militia attacked freedmen; causing 100 to 300 casualties and saw the torching of the Colfax courthouse. Some of the militia were indicted and charged with impeding the rights to vote, assemble, and bear arms. Can the federal government prosecute voter intimidation in regards to voting rights, assembly, and bearing arms? No, The 5-4 ruling ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not incorporate the Bill of Rights into state law, only federal. It was not the federal government's issue to prosecute issues that belong to state jurisdiction. Cruikshank could not be prosecuted under an enforcement act as he is not a state and there was no law to illegalize private discrimination yet. Also there is no allegation that this murder was done because of their race

Dred Scott v. Sanford

In Missouri, Dred Scott was a slave. He lived in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was outlawed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, then in Illinois, a free state, from 1833 to 1843. Scott filed a lawsuit for his release in a Missouri court after moving back to the state, arguing that since he lived in a free area, he was already free. Scott filed a new lawsuit in federal court following his defeat. Scott's master argued that, under the context of Article III of the Constitution, no "negro" or slave descendent could be a citizen. Whether or not Dred Scott was free or a slave? The Court ruled in favor of Sandford, holding that Dred Scott was a slave. The Court, delivered by Justice Taney, provided whether enslaved or free, "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.] and sold as slaves," could not be an American citizen and, as a result, lacked standing to file a lawsuit in federal court. Taney rejected the lawsuit for procedural reasons, stating that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Taney also maintained that Congress was prohibited from releasing slaves within Federal areas by the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which he claimed was illegal. The ruling was in deference to the Missouri courts, who decided that Scott was not liberated by relocating to a free state. In the end, Taney decided that any legislation that would take away a slave owner's property would be unlawful as slaves were protected by the Fifth Amendment as property.

Blyew v. United States (1871)

John Blyew and John Kennard, 2 white men, were convicted of killing several Black family members in Kentucky. When they were arrested in 1868, a Kentucky law still forbade Black witnesses from testifying against white defendants. Upon reaching the SC, held that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the defendants under the 1866 Civil Rights Act. The men were then never charged for the killings

In Re Tuchinge 1624

John Philip is testifying against three men (presumably white) for stealing Spanish ships. The significance of this case was that no other person's race is mentioned but Philip's. The text reads, "John Philip, a Negro christened in England 12 years since sworn." The choice to mention his race brings into question his reliability. A stigma of inferiority.

Hall v. DeCruir (1878)

Josephine DeCuir filed a lawsuit in Louisiana due to her being denied 1st class access after having purchased her ticket. Many times prior to reconstruction, she had traveled 1st class. In 1869, Louisiana passed a law prohibiting racial discrimination on "common carriers" within the state and allowed those persons affected to bring suit against the offender. Was her being denied first class access on account of race unconstitutional? yes, but it direct burden on interstate commerce (commerce clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce... not the states however the commerce clause was passed in 1887 so 11 years after this case). This is interstate commerce due to her traveling from Mississippi to New Orleans

The Kansas-Nebraska Act

Repealed Missouri Compromise Allowed popular sovereignty > Kansas and Nebraska were allowed to decide on whether they want slaves or not Resulted in Bleeding Kansas Led to Civil War

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Separate railroad cars for Blacks and Whites were mandated by Louisiana's Separate Car Act. Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths Caucasian, consented to take part in an experiment in 1892 to test the Act. They requested that Plessy, who according to Louisiana law was legally black, seat in a "whites only" car on a train in the state. The railroad complied because it believed that the Act required the acquisition of extra railroad cars, which would have added unneeded costs. Plessy was arrested for refusing to get out of the whites-only automobile when he was told to. Plessy's attorneys claimed during the trial that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were broken by the Separate Car Act. Whether or not the Separate Car Act is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? The Court (7-2) ruled in favor of Ferguson, holding that the Separate Car Act is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause The Court, provided that while acknowledging that the 14th Amendment aimed to provide complete parity between the races in the legal system. To put it briefly, segregation did not automatically qualify as illegal discrimination. Louisiana Separate Railway Car Act is not discriminatory Statue is reasonable based on usage, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to promotion of their comfort, and preservation of the public peace and good order Separation of the races does not "necessarily imply inferiority of either race" Justice Brown: "the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it" Black people choose to be offended and call it discriminatory. If you know your place, it is not discriminatory Segregation is not unconstitutional discrimination as per equal protection clause

Shelly v. Kraemer (1948)

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of racial discrimination in housing. The case arose when an African-American family, the Shelleys, purchased a house in a St. Louis, Missouri neighborhood that had a restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale of the property to anyone of African descent. The covenant was enforced by the neighbors, the Kraemers, who sued to prevent the Shelleys from taking possession of the property. The Supreme Court held that enforcement of the restrictive covenant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that since the restrictive covenant was created and enforced by private parties, the state action doctrine did not apply. However, the Court held that the enforcement of the restrictive covenant by state courts was a form of state action that violated the Equal Protection Clause. The decision in Shelley v. Kraemer was a major victory for civil rights activists and helped to strike down many other racially restrictive covenants across the country. It also served as a precursor to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, which sought to address discrimination in all areas of American life.

VA Act XXXIV

Slave masters (or any white people) were protected from killing any slave/black person

Souther v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1851)

Souther tortured his slave in a cruel, excessive manner for being drunk Souther was guilty and punished for his cruelty, however, was not punished for murder Virginia law allowed for the lawful beating of slaves for "correction", but it was too far

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process asks the question of whether the government's deprivation of a person's life, liberty or property is justified by a sufficient purpose. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion.

Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation were the first written constitution of the United States, serving as the governing document from 1781 until it was replaced by the current United States Constitution in 1789. The Articles established a confederation, or league of states, with a weak central government that had limited powers and could not levy taxes or regulate commerce. Under the Articles, each state retained its sovereignty and independence, and decisions were made by a unicameral Congress in which each state had one vote. However, the lack of a strong central government and the inability to raise funds or regulate commerce ultimately led to the Articles' failure. The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were addressed in the drafting of the United States Constitution, which established a stronger federal government with a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and the power to tax and regulate commerce.

DC Emancipation Act of 1862

The DC Emancipation Act of 1862 was a law signed by President Abraham Lincoln on April 16, 1862 that abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, which was then under federal jurisdiction. The act provided for the immediate emancipation of enslaved people in the District, with compensation to be paid to their owners. The DC Emancipation Act was a significant step towards the abolition of slavery in the United States, and it represented an important victory for the abolitionist movement. It also marked a turning point in the Civil War, as it signaled a growing commitment by the federal government to the cause of abolition and the end of slavery. However, the act was also controversial at the time, as some argued that it did not go far enough in its provisions for compensation to slave owners, and others criticized it for failing to address the issue of slavery in the border states, where it was still legal.

The Freedman's Bureau Act of 1865

The Freedman's Bureau Act of 1865 established the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands within the Department of War. It provided food, shelter, education and land for formerly enslaved blacks and poor whites. Many whites were enraged by the potential of freebies for former slaves so they were included in the Act as well. In 1865, President Johnson undermined the Freedmen's Bureau by issuing amnesty and pardons for former rebels and ordered Bureau officials to return the confiscated land to its former Confederate owners. Since the Bureau was created under military authority, once states were readmitted to the Union, they could no longer provide services there. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 re-created the Freedman's Bureau with adjudicative power and authorized the military to protect Black American citizens' rights and privileges. Racism and obstruction constantly undermined the Bureau until it was abolished in 1872.

The Ku Klux Klan Act (1871)

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, was a federal law designed to combat the activities of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other white supremacist groups in the Southern states following the Civil War. The act was passed by Congress on April 20, 1871, and signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. The Ku Klux Klan Act was a response to the widespread violence and intimidation tactics used by the KKK and other groups to suppress the civil and political rights of newly freed African Americans in the South. The act authorized the president to use federal troops and other measures to suppress conspiracies and acts of violence, and it also provided for criminal and civil penalties for individuals who violated the rights of others. The Ku Klux Klan Act represented a major expansion of federal power in the protection of civil rights and marked a significant step towards the enforcement of the Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. While it was largely successful in suppressing the activities of the KKK and other white supremacist groups, its enforcement was uneven, and the legacy of racial violence and discrimination in the South persisted for many years to come.

Slaugterhouse Cases (1873)

The State of Louisiana passed a law in 1869 that permitted a single corporation, the Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company, to have exclusive rights of the slaughtering business within New Orleans. Other butchers were required to either lease or rent facilities from this corporation. In response, a group of local butchers filed lawsuits claiming this law violated their rights under the recently ratified 14th Amendment. Did the exclusive privileges granted by Louisiana's law violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the law. The Court held that the protection of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment restricts only those laws impacting rights of U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship. Therefore, the Louisiana law did not breach the Fourteenth Amendment.

3/5th Compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a provision in the United States Constitution that determined how enslaved individuals would be counted for the purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives and calculating the number of electors each state would have in the Electoral College. The compromise stated that enslaved individuals would be counted as three-fifths of a person for these purposes. This meant that states with large enslaved populations would have more representation in Congress and in the Electoral College, giving them greater political power.

Trial of Celia (1855)

The Trial of Celia, also known as the State of Missouri v. Celia, a Slave, was a landmark case in the history of slavery and women's rights in the United States. The case involved a enslaved woman named Celia, who was tried and ultimately executed for killing her owner in self-defense. Celia was enslaved on a farm in Callaway County, Missouri, and was subjected to repeated sexual assault by her owner, Robert Newsom. After she became pregnant, Celia resisted Newsom's advances and, during one encounter, killed him in self-defense. She was subsequently arrested and put on trial for murder. During her trial, Celia's defense team argued that she had the right to defend herself against her owner's sexual violence, and that her actions were justified under the law. However, the jury was instructed that self-defense was not a valid defense for an enslaved person against their owner, and Celia was found guilty and sentenced to death. he case highlighted the brutal realities of slavery in the United States, and the ways in which enslaved women were particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation and abuse.

Re Sweat 1640

The Virginia Court would order a unwed Negro mother to be "whipped" while only requiring of the unwed father (probably white) a public penance The negro servant woman had sex with Robert Sweat, while she belonged to Lietenant Sheppard. Unlikely that she raped him, however, she had sex (rape or consensually) with someone, while belonging to someone else. Sweat had to pay a financial fine

War of 1812

The War of 1812 was between Britain and The U.S. However, General Andrew Jackson needed more fighters at this time, so he asked all free African Americans to join the fight, not guaranteeing citizenship, even though if you fight in a war in the U.S. you are guaranteed citizenship or any other fundamental human rights as per the Militia Act

Missouri Compromise

The land acquired from the Louisiana Purchase threatened to upend the balance of power between slave and free states. Missouri and Maine were admitted as slave and free states respectively and at the same time to maintain this balance. All future slave states would be below the 36' 30' parallel.

Cumming v. Board of Education (1899)

The plaintiffs claimed that the Board of Education had maintained a high school for white students with the help of funds in its possession, without offering a comparable education to children of color. An injunction was the main remedy that was requested. The state court did not find that the defendant's decision to temporarily suspend the high school for colored children due to financial constraints was a good enough justification to impose an injunction prohibiting the defendant from continuing to operate the high school for white students. The argument that the Board acted in bad faith, misused the authority granted to it by the relevant statute, or harbored animosity against the colored community was dismissed. Whether or not the actions of the Board of Education were in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The Court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, holding that the actions were not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court provided that the board's choice to educate 300 primary children rather than 60 high school students in a secondary setting was nondiscriminatory. The court made the point that the secondary school pupils who were impacted might still have attended private schools for a tuition that didn't exceed what they were already paying at Ware High School. The court finished its consideration by granting the states the authority to decide who should attend school as long as everyone benefits equally from taxes and there is no prejudice. The court held that federal authorities lacked the ability to intervene in school operations unless there was an obvious breach of rights.

15th Amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

The "lily-whites" and the "black and tan"

The terms "lily-whites" and "black and tan" were used in the late 19th century to describe two factions within the Republican Party in the Southern United States. The "lily-whites" were a group of white Republicans who sought to gain control of the party in the South and exclude African Americans from leadership positions. They were opposed by the "black and tan" faction, which was made up of both black and white Republicans who advocated for greater political representation for African Americans. The split between the two factions was particularly pronounced in the South during the 1890s, with the lily-whites gaining control of many state Republican parties and pushing for the disenfranchisement of African American voters. The conflict contributed to the decline of the Republican Party in the South and the solidification of Democratic Party control in the region. Overall, the lily-white movement represented a significant setback for African American political power and representation in the South, and its legacy can still be seen in the ongoing struggle for voting rights and equal representation in the United States.

Why Virginia and South Carolina?

Virginia and South Carolina were crop states, which meant that slavers forced many people to work plantations there.Virginia is called the "birthplace of slavery" because it codified slavery into law. South Carolina, a "minority-majority" colony, expanded on this legal control

Difference between briefing a case and writing a legal brief

When briefing a case, we summarize the case A Legal brief is when the attorneys of each side present their argument

Marbury v. Madison

William Marbury was made a justice of the peace by outgoing President John Adams. Marbury did not receive his commission before the transition to the new administration of President Thomas Jefferson. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to force the Secretary of State James Madison to deliver his commission. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Marbury had a right to his commission but the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 giving the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional. Was Marbury entitled to his commission? Did the provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 grant the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus constitutional? Yes, Marbury was entitled to his commission. The provision in the Judiciary Act of 1789 that granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional.Action: The Court did not (and will not) issue the writ of mandamus. Chief Justice Marshall declared the principle of judicial review, stating that the Constitution is the supreme law, and it is the duty of the Court to interpret it. The Court held that it had the authority to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress. The decision now upholds the precedent that the Supreme Court could declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. . . shall have the same right, in every state and Territory. . . to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other. (Goes against Dred Scott)

Writ of Certiorari

an order from a superior court to an inferior court to send the entire record of the case to the superior court of review

Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition

ordering lower or public officials to either do something or refrain from some action (Nixon and Watergate tapes)

Hayes-Tilden Presidential Election of 1876 and the Compromise of 1877)

the Compromise of 1877 ended reconstruction in the South and started the "let-alone" policy in the South, meaning white supremacists and Jim Crow laws ran the South and restricted African Americans in virtually all areas, especially before the Civil Rights movement. When the federal troops were pulled out of the south, lynching, hanging, and overall much harsher violence became a much more common threat for African Americans

Article I, Section 2, par. 3

⅗ compromise The more people living in your state, the more representatives state has in congress (purposes of taxation and apportionment) Each slave counted as ⅗ of a person in order to give the south more representation South gains more money, which furthers their agenda