American Government: Slavery & Civil Rights

This lesson has not been reviewed.

Please purchase the lesson to review.

Well, although I don't like to think about - slavery was an important part of the history of this country. At the time the Constitution was ratified slavery was very important in the South. In New England there were yeoman farmers and the like, but much of the southern economy was based around slavery and slave plantations.
When the delegates came to Philadelphia in 1787 to write the Constitution, they faced the issue of what to do about slavery. Many of the delegates wanted to ban it. That, of course, was not acceptable to those from the south. If there was to be a constitution, a compromise would have to be reached. The compromise that was reached was to postpone the decision. Slavery was not banned, but the importation of slaves was banned, at least after 1808, buying twenty years or so.
The southern states wanted to count slaves the same way whites were counted in order to get more seats in the House of Representatives. The northern states said no. Compromise was reached here, an uncomfortable one. Slaves were to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for representation in the house. The southern states were concerned that if the slaves ran away to the North they would be freed. So a clause was put in the Constitution saying that if slaves escaped they had to be returned. These compromises led to a good deal of controversy. Indeed, the nineteenth century abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, spoke of the Constitution as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.
The compromise worked for awhile though, until the issue of territorial expansion pressured it again. That is to say when new states were to be admitted to the Union would they be slave states or free states? Another compromise was worked out in 1820 called the Missouri Compromise. This compromise allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state, but it banned slavery in any territory north of a particular geographic line. And again, the compromise worked for a while. But slavery is not a kind of issue one can compromise over. And in 1856, there was actually a civil war in what became the State of Kansas between those who wished to see Kansas be a slave state, and those who wished it to be a free state. And the U.S. government split. President Pierce recognized the pro-slavery government of Kansas. The House of Representatives passed a bill recognizing the free government of Kansas. The Senate rejected it. A real mess in politics. Some hoped the Supreme Court might help, might be above politics, provide an answer that would calm the waters. The Supreme Court had an opportunity in 1857 in a case called Dred Scott. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken to territory that was free under the Missouri Compromise, that is, that banned slavery. He then claimed by touching free soil he was a free person he could no longer be enslaved.
In the Dred Scott case, the court said no. And it is generally considered one of the worst, if perhaps, not the worst decision the court ever issued. Why? What the court said was that a slave was not a person. That a slave was an article of merchandise, a piece of property, so a slave had no rights.
Our language in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable rights, about all persons being created equal did not apply to slaves. It followed from this that a slave could not be a citizen of the United States, and it also followed that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. As you might imagine, Dred Scott did not calm the waters. The decision was a dismal failure. In fact, it fanned the flames of the debate about slavery. It was popular in the South, and unpopular in the North where it was referred to as a stump speech. This is what the editorialist Horace Greeley had to say about the decision. He wrote: "It is entitled to just so more weight as would be a judgment of the majority of those congregated in any Washington bar room." The New York Independent newspaper wrote this: "If the people obey this decision they disobey God." Pretty strong language. And many people think the decision in Dred Scott contributed to the coming of the Civil War.
Now, it's the start of the Civil War, the North, the Union, President Lincoln were not committed to ending slavery. As the war progressed, however, things changed. And towards the end of 1862, President Lincoln issued a document known as the Emancipation Proclamation, and what it said in its language was that at the start of 1863 slaves in certain areas of the South were free. The idea was to foment insurrection, was to encourage slaves to rise up against the South and fight; however, by its explicit language it did not extend that freedom to slaves in areas controlled by the Union army.
When the war ended, the Constitution was amended three times. The Thirteenth Amendment ratified in 1865 prohibited slavery or involuntary servitude in the United States freeing all slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868 overruled Dred Scott. It said that any person born or naturalized in the United States was a citizen. It also added the equal protection clause, which said that no state could deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. Finally, in 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment was added which guaranteed the right to vote to people regardless of whether they had been slaves or not.
Now, unfortunately, these amendments did not lead to equal treatment, to an end to discrimination. In the South, the Union army was in residence and this gave some protection to the newly freed slaves. Indeed, some were elected to public office. It turned out, however, that the only hope for the newly freed slaves to lead a life of equality was the presence of federal troops.
Congress stepped in - in 1875 by passing a Civil Rights Act which banned discrimination in public places - be they hotels, restaurants, concert halls, theaters, and the like. In 1876, however, the presidential election was contested between Hayes and Tildon. It wasn't clear who won, and a back room deal got struck. The Republican Hayes would be elected President on the condition that he agreed to remove the Union troops from the South. And that's exactly what happened. Then in 1883, The Supreme Court heard a challenge to that Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the court struck it down. What it said was that the Act only could reach State action. That is to say, under the Constitution only State action could be prohibited. When the act tried to limit what individuals could do it went beyond the power the Congress had, and the vote was 8-1. This was part of a pattern that allowed Southern whites to rebuild a system of segregation. And indeed as the Nineteenth Century rolled on, such a system was created.
Segregation, division by race began to occur everywhere. In hospitals, in schools, in housing, in theaters, in parks. They were separate for blacks and for whites. Even water fountains and restrooms were segregated. Now this segregation was supported not only by state law but also by violence aimed at blacks who tried to cross the line.
There was also race baiting, attempts to make sure that whites and blacks would not coalesce in political union. In 1892 for example, there was such a political coalition, and the general strike in New Orleans. Arguments were made, racist arguments that poor whites should not think of themselves as poor, and therefore, align with poor blacks, but as white.
By the end of the Nineteenth Century then some progress had been made. Slavery had been abolished, majestic language had been added to the Constitution, but Jim Crow laws, laws that segregated all aspects of life had been enacted. And in many ways, the future looked bleak for African Americans. On the other hand, you might wonder how long could separateness last in this country given the Declaration of Independence, given our notice of inalienable rights. There was tension here. Could that go on forever? Well, as we'll see in the Twentieth Century there were dramatic changes in race relations. That, however, is another story.
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
African-American Struggle for Rights
Slavery and the Civil Rights Movement Page [2 of 2]