Civil+Rights+Cases+(1883)

BY GRACE LEE, MAXIE LINDHOLM, AND BRIDGET GIBBONS

**Case Title:** Civil Rights Cases (1883)

**Date of Hearing** OCTOBER 15TH, 1883

**Chief Justice and A Brief Biographical Sketch** Morrison R. Waite //**__Morrison R. Waite, Chief Justice of the Civil Rights Case of 1883__**// -1816: Born in Lyme, Connecticut on November 29th -1837: Graduated from Yale University and moved to Maumee City to study law with an attorney -1839: Admitted to the bar. Remained in Maumee City until 1850 -1850: Served one term in the Ohio General Assembly -1846&1862: Ran for the US House of Representatives, but lost both times. -1871: Appointed by President Ulysses S. Grant to settle US claims against Great Britain. His works resulted in an award of $15.5 million in compensation for the US -1873: Elected, by unanimous decision, to be President of the Ohio Constitutional Convention. -1874: Nominated by President Grant to be a Chief Justice of the US on January 19th. -1888: Died on March 23rd after serving 14 years as a Chief Justice.

**Documents or Amendments Relevant To The Case**

In essence, there are only three Amendments/ Acts that hold relevancy to The Civil Rights Cases of 1883, and those are the Thirteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Civil Rights Act was (what should have been) an extension of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, and what was meant to do was clearly define how these newly freed slaves should be treated. The Civil Rights Act banned any type of racial discrimination in public areas such as hotels, theatres, parks, and more. The Civil Rights Act saw flaws in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Thirteenth Amendment states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" The Fourteenth Amendments states, "All persons born or naturalized in the Unites States...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities or 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".

** Summary of the Case: ** The Civil Rights Cases were a series of five similar cases, alike because they all dealt with the issue of unconstitutional acts of racism towards African Americans. They felt discriminated and that their rights as a U.S. citizen were not being enforced, like the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th. 15th), so they took it to court. T he Court, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibited denial of equal protection by a state, did not give Congress power to regulate private acts. The Court also made it so the the Thirteenth Amendment does applied only to the extent that it prohibits people from owning slaves, not exhibiting discriminatory behavior. The court ended up deeming The Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. These five cases are listed as // United States v. Stanley; United States v. Ryan; United States v. Nichols; United States v. Singleton; Robinson et ux. v. Memphis & Charleston R.R. Co. //

**Main issue/ Argument of the Case**

The five smaller cases listed above all made the Supreme Court question the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments state that there shall be no slavery and every citizen should have all the privileges of being a US citizen, but it didn't prevent any type of discrimination or racism, which the Civil Rights Act enforced. The problem was that it mixed into private rights that citizens had to protect their businesses and property.

The main argument was whether or not the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendment covered private and public acts of discrimination and whether or not the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was constitutional.

**Decision Rendered By Court/ Vote** By an 8-1 decision, the court deemed The Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional because the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were directed towards discrimination by the state, and not discrimination from an individual or a company. The eight Supreme Court Judges who voted it down thought that by not doing so, the free speech of the people would be taken away. **(Free speech? What about other rights?)**

** Who voted what, dissenting, and why? ** **// JOHN M. HARLAN //** John M. Harlan, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1877–1911) from Kentucky, dissented (voted against) not supporting the protection of civil rights for African Americans. Harlan supported the protection of these rights to African Americans and wrote many dissents to try to make their civil rights constitutional. He felt that the court was underminding the power and authority of the Reconstruction Amendments (the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments). Harlan said, "The substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism.".

**Members of the Court At the Time**



FROM TOP LEFT TO BOTTOM RIGHT:

Samuel Blatchford (NY): 11 years. 1882-1893 Samuel F. Miller (Iowa): 28 years. 1862-1890 Stephen J. Field (Calif.): 34 years. 1862-1877 Joseph P. Bradley (NJ): 21 years. 1870-1892 Morrison R. Waite (Ohio): 14 years. 1874-1888 John M. Harlan (KY): 33 years. 1877-1911 William B. Woods (GA): 6 years. 1880-1887 Stanley Matthews (Ohio): 7 years. 1881-1889 Horace Gray (Mass.): 20 years. 1882-1902



**What is your personal opinion on the case? Explain.** Well, first off,let it be known that the person answering this is Bridget, and that my opinions don't exactly reflect those of Grace and Maxie. In //my// opinion, I feel like it's a ridiculous thing that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 had even been questioned in the first place, and that what happened was terrible. I don't understand what could provoke people to think they have the right to discriminate others if the state doesn't, or even what would make them want to fight for that right. I don't see the difference between discrimination from the state or an independent party; discrimination is discrimination. I can't possibly fathom what would motivate someone to be so conceited that they refuse to share a public toilet with someone of a different race, anyways. I don't see the big deal.

** What if the case had gone the other way? ** The results of the case were not good for African Americans at the time, the protections of their rights were voted uncostitutional when the southeren states wanted to overturn the Civil Rights Acts and take African American's civil rights away. So if the case had gone the other way, deaming that the protection of African Americans civil rights was voted constitutional rather than unconstitutional, then I feel that diversity and integration would have progressed faster, resulting in less racial problems in the future.

** Works Cited **

Infoplease. "Civil Rights Cases (1883)." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com. Pearson Education, 2005. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. .

Infoplease. "Past U.S. Supreme Court Members — Infoplease.com." Infoplease: Encyclopedia, Almanac, Atlas, Biographies, Dictionary, Thesaurus. Free Online Reference, Research & Homework Help. — Infoplease.com. Pearson Education, 2005. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. .

Linder, Doug. "The Powers of Congress under the 13th, 14th, and 15thAmendments."UMKC School of Law. Oxford Press, 2010. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. .

Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Supreme Court Historical Society - Timeline of the Court - Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite." The Supreme Court Historical Society - Home. LexisNexis, 2003. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. .

**7/7 Biblio - good job.** **26/28 Content -- good job on a very difficult case. A little more on What if would help.** **5/5 Organization - good job.**

**38/40 Total**