The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book. David L Hudson
Читать онлайн книгу.
v. Sandford case.
CourtSpeak: Scott v. Sandford Slavery Case (1857)
Chief Justice Roger Taney (majority): “In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.”
Justice John McLean (dissenting): “By virtue of what law is it, that a master may take his slave into free territory, and exact from him the duties of a slave? The law of the Territory does not sanction it. No authority can be claimed under the Constitution of the United States, or any law of Congress.”
Justice Benjamin Curtis (dissenting): “To determine whether any free persons, descended from Africans held in slavery, were citizens of the United States under the Confederation, and consequently at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to know whether any such persons were citizens of either of the States under the Confederation, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Of this there can be no doubt. At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free native-born inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens.”
hy did many believe that Dred Scott had a valid claim?
Scott believed he had a valid claim because some courts had adhered to the doctrine of “once free, always free.” This meant that if a slave reached free territory legally, then he or she was free because slavery was outlawed in those jurisdictions. The Missouri courts and the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept that argument, however.
How did the U.S. Supreme Court reject the Declaration of Independence’s “All men are created equal” principle for Scott?
Chief Justice Roger Taney reasoned that it was clear that the Founders did not believe this applied to members of the African race when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. Taney wrote that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.”
Slaves reach freedom via the so-called Underground Railroad. An operator of the railroad, who harbored a slave, was sued by a slaveowner who claimed that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was constitutional. In Jones v. Van Zandt, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Charles H. Phillips/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images.
What about the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which provided that there could be no slavery in many states?
Chief Justice Taney actually ruled that this law was unconstitutional, writing: “It is the opinion of the court that the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not warranted by the Constitution.”
Which two justices dissented in the Scott case?
Justices John McLean and Benjamin Curtis were the Court’s only two dissenters. Both believed that the majority ignored the reality that African Americans were free men in many states of the Union and that Dred Scott was free after living in Illinois for years.
Which justice was so upset by the Scott case that he resigned?
Curtis was so upset by the Court’s decision in the Dred Scott case that he resigned from the bench shortly thereafter. The Scott decision was issued on March 6, 1857; Curtis left on September 30.
The Taney Court upheld the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 in what decision?
The Taney Court unanimously ruled in Jones v. Van Zandt (1847) that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was constitutional. John Van Zandt, an operator of the so-called Underground Railroad, was sued by Kentucky slaveowner Wharton Jones for harboring a male slave named Andrew. The Taney Court, in an opinion written by Justice Levi Woodbury, upheld the constitutionality of the law. The Court determined that slavery was a “political question settled by each State for itself.”
CourtSpeak: Jones v. Van Zandt (1847) Slavery Case
Justice Levi Woodbury (unanimous): “Before concluding, it may be expected by the defendant that some notice should be taken of the argument, urging on us a disregard of the constitution and the act of Congress in respect to this subject, on account of the supposed inexpediency and invalidity of all laws recognizing slavery or any right of property in man. But that is a political question, settled by each State for itself; and the federal power over it is limited and regulated by the people of the States in the constitution itself, as one of its sacred compromises, and which we possess no authority as a judicial body to modify or overrule. Whatever may be the theoretical opinions of any as to the expediency of some of those compromises, or of the right of property in persons which they recognize, this court has no alternative, while they exist, but to stand by the constitution and laws with fidelity to their duties and their oaths. Their path is a strait and narrow one, to go where that constitution and the laws lead, and not to break both, by travelling without or beyond them.”
In what decision did the Court rule that Ohio did not have to release a suspected criminal to Kentucky?
The Taney Court unanimously ruled in Kentucky v. Dennison (1861) that the governor of Ohio, William Dennison, did not have to release an Ohio man who helped a female slave escape from Kentucky to Ohio. Willis Lago, a free African American man, helped a female slave named Charlotte escape from the slave state of Kentucky to the free state of Ohio.
Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin asked Ohio governor Salmon Chase, the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, to return Lago for prosecution. Chase, an abolitionist, refused to comply. When Chase left office, his successor, Dennison, also refused to comply. Magoffin then sued in the U.S. Supreme Court for a court order forcing Ohio to comply with the extradition order. The U.S. Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to hear the case because it was a case between two states, Kentucky and Ohio.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that while Dennison may have a moral duty to obey the law, the Court could not enforce him to comply. Taney wrote that Dennison should comply with the order but “if the Governor of Ohio refuses to discharge this duty, there is no power delegated to the General Government, either through the Judicial Department or any other department, to use any coercive means to compel him.”
In what celebrated decision did the Taney Court affirm the release of Africans enslaved by Spaniards?
In The Amistad (1841), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a lower court judgment that forty-three African slaves who washed ashore in Connecticut on the Spanish ship The Amistad should be returned to their native land free from the shackles of slavery by their Spanish captors.
The celebrated case occurred when the Spanish ship sailed from Havana, Cuba, to Porte Principe, another town in Cuba. The Africans revolted and killed the ship’s captain, Ramon Ferrer and a few other members of the crew. Two crew members, Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes, momentarily escaped but were captured. The Africans did not kill Ruiz and Montes. Apparently, the two Spaniards promised to sail the ship back to Africa, but instead headed for America. The ship was discovered by Lieutenant Thomas Gedney of the U.S. Coast Guard and by sea captains