Transcripts For CSPAN Supreme Court Landmark Case Slaughterhouse Cases 20151020

Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Evening and welcome to cspan of the National Constitution landmark cases. Our 12 part series looks at some of the Supreme Courts most interesting and impactful historic decisions. Tonight, we are looking at a case you might not know very much about. Called the slaughterhouse cases. For the first time, the Supreme Court reviewed the newly enacted 14th amendment to the constitution. What we do use you to our guests. Let me introduce you to our guests. He has argued more than 75 cases before the Supreme Court. Paul, welcome. Michael is a legal historian and the author of a biography of a justice you are hearing about tonight. His home base is at the university of maryland. I will have you make the case to the audience. Why is this on our list . Why did the slaughterhouse cases matter . This case belongs in any list of great landmark Supreme Court cases and it is the first opportunity the Supreme Court has to interpret the 14th amendment and the reason that is so important is the 14th amendment is what essentially takes big erin t of the bill of rights eventually and constraints the actions of State Government and if you think ofut the bill of rights, all them by their terms were really were designed to restrict the federal government. It is really only at the point we go through a civil war were people realize its not just a federal government they have to be concerned about but State Governments. There is a process of adding the 13th, 14th, and 13th amendments. They restrict the states, they are tremendously important. The slaughterhouse cases the first time Supreme Court interprets the 14th amendment. Use of this decision influence the course of Race Relations for a century and it continues to shape constitutional law today. Make the case. In the slaughterhouse cases, the key clause is the privileges or immunities in that question as to what that meant and whether or not it actually applied the bill of rights. In the slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court goes down the road. It becomes a long and tangled story. This is also an export narrowly important case because it doesnt end in a peace treaty. There is no signing on the deck of a battleship like at the end of world war ii. It takes a long time before congress decides what their terms are going to be. And many people see the 14th amendment as that peace treaty. Agree to these terms and we will allow you to have a restored place. The slaughterhouse cases are about butchers. We will learn more about how this case began and how it made its way to the court. We will learn a little more about the 14th amendment. If you watched last week, we did the dred scott decision and andned that the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments were a remedy for the decision. It was a terrible decision made in the dred scott case. Lets listen to senator after clay he of vermont who is talkingleahy of vermont about the 14th amendment and why that was such an important thing for the u. S. Lets listen. Its interesting. The 14th amendment is 150 years old. What you call it that . We had Founding Fathers in the original but then looked at that series of amendments. Its like the u. S. Became more aware of what they are and more aware of the fact slavery ending and so on we had to treat all people the same. Having said i know that, it took a long, long time and some places in this country, its still going on but it was the second founding. It was the Second Coming of the u. S. Talking abouthy why these amendments are the second founding of our country. Lets look at the text of the 14th amendment. Just so you understand the legal framework. Orsays all persons born Natural Light in the u. S. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the u. S. And other state wherein they reside. No state should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or a new deed of citizens of the u. S. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor the equalerson protection of the law. You heard our guests talk about the privileges and immunities clause. Pleaseng to ask you to set the stage for the passage of the 14th amendment. Countryed scott, the fight the civil war and this amendment was passed in 1868. Tell us how it came to be. Ends, there is no peace treaty. There is a long debate about donelincoln would have with reconstruction had he lived. Demand put in charge is andrew johnson. Andrew johnson allows the legislature to be elected throughout the south immediately after the civil war without giving africanamerican men the right to vote. The immediately begin passing a known as thes black codes. The black codes were laws that applied only to black people. They said black people cannot meet in groups of six after sundown. It had even more ominous laws january,like each africanamericans had to produce a document showing where they were going to work or the coming year and if they cannot produce that document, they would be fined for vagrancy and sentenced to work on a plantation to pay off the fine for the coming year. The core of the black codes was to restore slavery in form if not in law. The black codes shock a lot of people in the north because it seemed like after over 700,000 americans dead that the war meant more than that. When Congress Finally came back into session, a long struggle goes on with resident johnson as president johnson as to what is vision of reconstruction would be and what Congress Says it would be. Eventually out of the joint committee of reconstruction comes the 14th amendment, which will be congresss terms. Included in the language you read are lots of phrases like the equal protection clause that are aimed directly at the black codes. If you have a law that says people cannot be in groups after six after sundown, great, but it has to apply to everyone. What can you tell our audience about the view of reconstruction and these amendments on southerners who felt as though they were in an occupied land . You certainly had in the wake of the civil war this situation where you have some newly freed and freedmen. You have some people coming down from the north to take advantage of the reopening of the south. The last thing they want to see is federal authority being imposed on them from washington in part because federal authority is designed to protect the newly freed slaves and apart because they had just fought a war where they were trying to vindicate states rights and although they lost the war, i dont think their hearts and minds were changed in the process. Part of what makes them so controversial in the south about the 13th, 14th, 15th amendment is it is this idea of asserting the federal government will on all sorts of issues that have traditionally been left to the State Government. Place in story takes the reconstructed south of louisiana and the city of new orleans. Orleans typical of the south or were the special conditions down there . New orleans was a complex place but it is a place that everyone is looking to see where reconstruction can succeed. Class of very well educated former free persons of color that came out of the french and spanish culture. Put the people who can lie to confederate claims that africanamericans are too uneducated and ignorant to serve in office. In new orleans, there is all ult. S of tamils tam all kinds of what people who are extraordinarily angry vet by 1816 who are angry that by 1869, you have africanamericans serving on juries, the police force, africanamerican detect is solving highprofile crimes. Detectives solving is rofile ryans crowd crimes. The past couple weeks, there are some pretty big characters. There are two in this particular story but there are groups of thise who are part of scenario. One of those is the butchers Benevolent Association and various other groups. Can you tell us a bit about who they were . Time, you do have a dynamic where the slaughterhouse is at this point are in new orleans proper and there are a and they butchers have this tradition is being involved in this trade that is part of their identity. Is a such the stage for the idea that you have these slaughter houses near the Large Population centers in new orleans and anybody who has read the jungle knows that slaughterhouse is even 60 years later were no picnic. , and will and had a reputation where you dont want to be there in the summer because you might leave in a pine box. Michael a metropolis of america some people called it. Suit, ithey file would like to have a brief biography. They hire as their attorney this person by the name of John Campbell. Who is a John Campbell . John campbell, i often call the people genius of the 14th amendment. John campbell is a former u. S. Supreme Court Justice in the majority in the dred scott decision but hes from alabama. 20 civil war breaks out, he resigned to join the confederacy where he becomes jefferson davisassistant secretary of war. He says the number of things that do not hold up well and when robert e. Lee at the end of the war are proposing the confederacy employed back black troops, campbell is completely against it. Arrested after the lincoln assassination because they think he has a part in it and he is held in jail for months and he comes out very embittered and will make his legal career in radicalans after reconstruction begins fighting the reconstruction government. Everything he is doing is being wart thefort th biracial reconstruction of louisiana most that he says things like we have africans in a place all around us and every day, they are bargaining away their duties. He says anything, even violence, is better than the insanity that seems trivial. Host that seems to prevail. Host you wrote the book about Justice Miller. He is considered one of the courts most important justices. Paul the slaughterhouse cases has such a tremendous impact on the 14th amendment that anyone who issued that opinion will get credit. He is also a force. Miller is this burly, john goodmanlike character. He prides himself on cutting one lawyers go on and on. He is like, get to the point. He says any point, some point. Anyone who dealt with him ithout the gilded age was just a force of nature when he entered the room. Because you have been in front of these justices come i would like to have you think about this dynamic. A former Supreme Court justice who resigns to fight for the confederacy arguing before his former colleagues and here is another dynamic. Es john miller loath campbell. Have this is something we not seen in the modern era. For someone to leave the court and appear in front of the court, the justices will decide these cases and decide been based on the view of the laws. You cannot help but imagine the personalities have something to do with this. When you have someone arguing the case that one of the justices has an intense personal ,islike and political dislike the view of leaving the court to join the confederacy is some ring Justice Miller cannot really forgive. To be hearing this argument from that particular advocate has to change the dynamic in a way that that justice is processing the case. Time to learn about what got this case into litigation. We are to visit new orleans in a piece of the video. Youre going to learn more about the conditions that people were protesting in new orleans that led to the creation of this communal property, the slaughterhouse Landing Company that the butchers were protesting. Lets watch. Refuge, theof the human and animal waste, the livers, the hearts, with all of that being dumped in the river, its no wonder this city was famous as a city of the dead. 1860, there would have been s ineast 84 slaughterhouse this general area. The entire place was one loyal stench royal stench. They were coming from texas or the prairies of louisiana. An estimated 300,000 heads of offle and pork were dropped and delivered at that landing every year. That would be a separate group and they would stampede them through town to all of these butcher shops. Within this direction, what was called the nuisance war. That is where a loved the that ishe livers where all of the entrails and river. Were put into the less then two miles down river, there were the intake pipes for the towns major waterworks system. Thaturprising, a lot of endless silt had collected around those pipes. The people who lived near here were pretty much up in arms and they were trying for many years prior to the enactment of the slaughterhouse kays to have these Meat Industries centralized in one location. That was basically the impetus for the enactment of the slaughterhouse case. Host i like to tell you about how you get involved. You can call us and all of your comments or questions will be on about this case. We will go to calls in about 10 minutes. Or you can send us a tweet. I can follow your comments and questions as they come in. There is a conversation started on our facebook page. Some of those questions will make it into those discussions. We just heard about the deplorable conditions. How did it come to be citizens saw redress from their legislature . When you pump water into the water supply, there would be all kinds of pieces of entrails floating in it. There have been repeated efforts to move the butchers either across the river or down below in this city and it happened again and again but the butchers are a large group that managed to weasel their way back into the city every time. The butchers are very tightknit. They text the monopoly, keep other people out of the business, and they fight back. The regulations always fail. The butchers for most of new orleans history are not a wellliked group. People want the meat but they see the butchers as people often putting their health in jeopardy. What happens is the legislature during reconstruction decides uret their strategy to l people to the Republican Party so it could survive is that they would get done a number of things they had always wanted done, including moving the slaughterhouse out of the city and fixing the levees and doing all of these things. In the process, they might lure businessmen to the Republican Party willing to put racial animosity aside for economic progress. The effect think will be something the community will rally around and say i didnt like this legislature but they are getting good things done. Thats not the way it will turn out. Host we are to next take you to the legislature where the spews of legislation was brought. It was a legislature in the reconstruction south. Particularly louisiana. There are racial politics attached. Lets watch. Of there in an area museum that explores radical reconstruction in louisiana. We are looking at a ballot box from 1875. It is a unique object and it represents Voting Rights in louisiana during reconstruction. After the civil war, and you group of people was able to vote for the first time. A new group of people with able to vote for the first time. Youre looking at a poster that shows him of the africanamericans elected into the legislature doing radical reconstruction. The Louisiana State Legislature Passed the act. One of the most interesting figures in this picture is n, the first man of african descent elected Lieutenant Governor of the state lost that he served for several years of the state. He served for several years. His replacement went on to serve for 35 days as the governor of louisiana, the first africanamerican to serve as governor of a state. About three months later, the Supreme Court handed down the slaughterhouse verdict. The racial composition of Louisiana State legislature changed during reconstruction ended was also a time when houses of northerners moved to the south. Many of the businessmen who wanted to establish the slaughterhouse were from the north. What youre looking at here is a g, typical of the luggage northerners would have brought with them. The term carpetbagger was used by many southerners. They saw northerners coming to the south and ask avoiding the not and exploiting the natural resources. Host the Louisiana Legislature with africanamerican members passes the slaughterhouse law, which will require the creation of the slaughterhouse company. The butchers would be required to do their work there. I am going to take a caller. Hello, roberto. Caller hello. I want to commend cspan for this wonderful series. I find it very educational. In the 1800s, white citizense considered but not allowed to vote. My question is, is the right to vote a privilege of National Citizenship . Thank you. Host thank you. The 15th amendment is passed specifically to deal with the issue of voting. Voting rights are not conferred by the 14th amendment and not women and just because they are citizens of the u. S. Under the privileges or immunities clause. Right to vote is enshrined in the 15th amendment and is not extend to women. We have to wait until the 19th amendment until that is protected. There is an interesting aspect of the right to woman protected by the privileges or immunities clause. One of the cases that follows immediately after the slaughterhouse cases it involves an effort by a woman lawyer in the state of illinois to get admitted to the state bar of illinois and her argument was the ability to be an attorney withractice before the bar a privilege of immunity or citizenship. The Supreme Court applying some of the same reasoning it would adopt in the slaughterhouse cases rejected that argument and said a female attorney did not have the privilege to practice law. Caller inis our next louisiana. Caller i would like to ask Michael White so many of these originated in louisiana. Michael new orleans and louisiana are central to the reconstruction story. You not only have the afro creoles, who make reconstruction working the best chance of new orleans, but you have 10,000 former slaves that move into the city and all of these extra confederates. Most of the south was destroyed and they all moved to new orleans as well. Incrediblyis tumultuous place where you have this very proud class of africanamericans that will be litigating their new rights and that will lead to the plessy decision. Trying tother people deny them. Louisiana will have the democratic arm of the party. This, three of the greatest of the 14th amendment cases emerge. This question you said earlier that Justice Campbell argued in the slaughterhouse cases and i may have misunderstood you about how many justices did that. My recollection is one argued a case before the Supreme Court. He represented puerto rico in a case before the Supreme Court and he may have died right before the decision was handed down. Am i correct . Paul i think you may be correct. I think he was the last example of somebody stepping down from the court and not serving as a senior justice. Justices nothe longer serve on the Supreme Court but they still are article three jurists and still sit from time to time on the court of appeals. Its been a while since we had a justice who not only steps down but is retired from article three entirely. Host if you are new to the linn experience cal we dont answer your call until red before the air so please keep calling. We had about an hour ahead of us. Period an interesting of time. South,fe was like in the which is where our case centers. We will return to the city of new orleans because the legal senters data centers centers. Where the an area livestock landing and slaughterhouse operations were located. And would go from the levy back a quarter of a mile long. , you can still see eight down here. Ee it. Ly the s hogs were unloaded and taken to the slaughter house. This is the area where all of the butchers in this city had to operate. Butchers whoench had ethnic roots in france. Be pushedot want to out. They didnt want to be centralized. The understanding was that they would have to be offered a stall at market rate. You could not play favorites. They decided to carry that case forward. The rest is history. Host when they took the case to the louisiana courts, what was the heart . Michael the heart of the case the claimis marking of being denied equal protection. John campbell and the other lawyers teamed up with campbell get involved. They see an opportunity in the 14th amendment, and amendment the x confederate exconfederate press. They saw an opportunity in the broad language of that amendment that didnt say anything about the race of whom it would apply to. They were arguing they were being denied equal protection. Campbell even went as far to argue that it violated the 13th amendment, that requiring butchers to slaughter in anothers slaughterhouse constituted slavery. Kind of laughing his laugh. Allow him evil even though a lot of people were not fond of the butchers, this so thebeing packaged butchers become local celebrities and all of the papers are cheering them on as the litigation goes forward. Here is the irony the people of new orleans or suffering and had colorado dem ex because of the work and epedimeic. Everybody fit that description. This is less about the butchers and more about the fact you have this pass of legislature and there was a sense people would are youfrom nests there was an opportunity to turn this into something that could be whipped up into something that was opposed. Michael in the louisiana courts, you had seven district courts. There, there were two judges grown to be sympathetic to campbell. There were three people who had attempted early on. He was grown disaffected when africanamericans ordered the desegregated. Have twower level, you judges that will constantly issue injunctions on the side of campbell. Courtuisiana supreme would reverse the injunction. This goes on and on not just in the slaughterhouse litigation. Its in the project where they want to build the can house and mississippi to the gulf of mexico. Its a strategy where campbell and his allies are trying to discredit this government, claiming everything is the result of corruption. Effectively. They cannot get anything done. Finally, what the legislature does is say they cannot take this anymore and create a new district court. A republican judge in the court and it shuts out lower level courts and campbell does not care anymore. He has moved his argument to the federal courts and now he can get the same claims in federal court that he had done successfully in state court. From joes take a call in minnesota. Caller good evening. I would like to thank you for doing this incredible series. My question is how did the 13th amendment get past one there were 23 senators excluded from the voting . Host can you take that . Michael what happened is the Congress Makes it a requirement that the state legislatures have to ratify the 14th amendment in order to be readmitted to the union in order to be allowed to have federal representatives in the congress. That is the question theres always the controversy. The congress that passed the amendment was not a fully staffed congress. I think that is solved by the a three quarters vote of the congress and it didnt specify that all states had to be in place for that to happen. Host can you tell us why the Supreme Court decided to take this case on . Was it decided by the louisiana Supreme Court . There was not a conflict between states. Paul you still have the federal issue in the case and that is how it gets to the Supreme Court. That is part of campbells strategy. He knows he is really not going to get the relief he wants in the louisiana courts and understands if he can provide a federal issue come he can get to the Supreme Court. That is where the 13th and 14th amendments come in as will he not just something that works in a sense as really not just something that works in the sense of taking these provisions designed to foster reconstruction and protect africanamericans and using them as a weapon. These amendments are designed to be a shield for africanamericans and using them as a sword to cut down their newly enacted legislation. Thats something where it has the insight. He would know it, being a former justice, that these federal claims are a ticket to the Supreme Court review. Host we are going to have to tell people about the Supreme Court this landed in. Who was the chief justice . Simon chase. Chaseief justice doesnt have long to live. Re is a clause made up of largely. Barry couple people left over. There are a couple people left over. This is a court made up of justices appointed by lincoln and grant. You think they would all be people sympathetic to reconstruction. It doesnt turn out to be the way. There is stephen j field and Justice Bradley and others soured on reconstruction. Host i read that one lincoln made these appointments to the Supreme Court, he had run a litmus test. He didnt delve into their positions on other issues. Correct . Michael correct. He has done all kinds of controversial things. He wants judges that he is convinced will hold his war powers and that is the litmus test. There are Economic Issues and everything but those are secondary. Evenepublicans stephen j field was a democrat. He gets what he asks for. The court is, at least during the war, going to uphold lincolns position and after the going to of them are turn and declare some of the things done like the legal tender act as a legal. Host we have the names of the justices on the screen. In one of the books come it is described as an undistinguished court. Michael i would not agree. When you read the papers of these gentlemen, there are a few blowhards. Swayne is a sleepy experience but with miller, field, bradley, you are dealing with justices of great intellect. I dont always agree with them but these are serious individuals. Host harold is watching us in omaha. You are on the air. Caller thank you. I dont need to denigrate the importance of the case. Ward there are also other cities across dashboard there also other cities across the country also other cities across the country that have these problems and time took care of them . In omaha, we had slaughterhouse s. Time addressed that. Michael i do know that what they were doing in new orleans was modeled on what other cities had done, most notably new york, of having a centralized slaughterhouse. Some of these worm invisible and not put together by private investments. New orleans did not have any money in reconstruction and having private investors building a needed slaughterhouse and giving them a 25 year franchise was not unreasonable given the economic situation. Ifont know what happened they just had a laissezfaire approach. It was time to act. Would make ist i if you just look at this as being a case about the slaughterhouses and legislative efforts to deal with them, you might not think this is that big a deal but with a number of the cases that will be discussed in this series you can look at the miranda cases. What makes these cases significant is they go all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court addresses some thing that is profound and lasting. One of the things i want to share is this is not lost on the justices deciding the case. This does not strike them as just another case about how you other sanitation problems. Justice miller in his own opinion sends this no question he is essentially starting out by saying this is the single most important case any of us have heard. Host mary is watching in purpose chris christie. Caller hello. My question is a directed to professor ross. Who is attributed to the world educated african Creole Community and also to the andation of oscar dunn hatchback . Michael what had happened in there were a few public schools. Notafro creoles were schooled there. Some sent their kids to the north. T was all done i wanted to get another point in. Omaha, things get solved over time because its an efficient place. Getsw orleans, nothing done no offense. I love you and i have your back but if the legislature didnt act, there would still be butchers putting things in the river. Host 10, you are next. M, you are next. Caller did the north have didnt they have enough rivers . What was the reason for the butchers to go down to arkansas . Host 20 to be made . Moneyl not everyone to be made . The people in the north were investors. There was not any capital in the north after the sale. The economy was in ruins. When they go to rebuild the railroads, they bring in henry mccone. You did outside money. You needed outside money. This will get launch in the american memory that these are all scoundrels down there to get elected on the votes of ignorance and use their position to rip off the south for their benefit. When you read the letters of carpetbaggers, many of them had an evangelical sense they were doing gods work and they were coming to the south to fill it with factories and public and to recreate the south and the norths image. That, they are called carpetbaggers. There are a couple scoundrels in the group. This is a gilded age and corruption is everywhere but many of them think they are doing something important and present the notion they are just there to get rich. Host our next question joseph in wisconsin. Caller what happened to judge campbell . Host you are getting ahead of our story. We will tell you if you continue watching. Thank you. Let me introduce judge campbells nemesis, Samuel Miller. He is one of the most distinguished members of the court. He was assigned to write the majority opinion. We will learn more about his background in our next video. Single miller moved here about 1850 Samuel Miller moved here about 1850. He left kentucky because he did not believe in slavery. Kentucky was a slave state and iowa was not. We have an article that references when mr. Miller was a young man, his family owned slaves and his friend was a slave and his father beat the young child and mr. Miller did not like that so he came here his his family and he freed slaves. He had some of them working here for them in which he paid them. The Historical Society believes this would have been the dining room where he would have entertained political guests and other judges. He had a great interest in state politics. His views shaped the Republican Party. Here is a copy from the article stating he went to the republican state convention. They were electing officers and he was representing the first district. Samuel miller had a successful law firm. He attracted national attention. He was appointed u. S. Supreme Court Justice by Abraham Lincoln and was the very first appointed justice this side of the mississippi river. Is important to know about his background and the temperament he brought . Michael this is a man who married into a slave owning family. He was briefly a doctor and wrote his dissertation on hollera. He was the first to recognize it had a connection to water. Moved and in kentucky, he follows the emancipation iist leader. And he thinkswa it will be the next chicago. He becomes one of the founders of the Republican Party. Throughout, he is a moderate republican. A staunch supporter of lincoln and eventually of reconstruction and he is someone that doesnt like lawyers puffing up a case of ancient president. His argument campbells argument in slaughterhouse is exactly the kind of thing miller doesnt like. He says we know why these amendments were passed, to protect the friedman and free men. Justice thatst of we would call a practical midwestern banker. Thinker. That is part of the case, dismissing what he sees as puff ery. Host can you tell us about the state of the Supreme Court . Paul they met in the old chamber in the senate. This is long before they have their own marble palace across the street. The circumstances are more modest. At this point, Supreme Court arguments are well extended. These are multiday affairs. Typically the most important Supreme Court argument these days will get 30 minutes a side and when the slaughterhouse cases are argued for the second time, its a threeday affair. Where themething justices allowed the lawyers a lot of air time to make their case. Relying ont only is the 13th and 14th amendment in an audacious way but he is drawn back to longestablished british precedents. One of the things for a modern lawyer, its hard to understand why this complaint about the butchers losing their ability to practice their trade in this company being given a monopoly is even a plausible claim but campbell to give him credit, does go back to these british common law cases. There is a famous case that involves the crown giving a monopolybritain over the distribution of playing cards in the entirety of england. There is a celebrated legal case. It says that is a monopoly that is unlawful. Campbell is crafting is running right into millers prejudices. Argument thathe the common law made clear you cannot have these monopolies and the privileges or immunities law must incorporate the idea that i have a privilege to practice my trade and the government cannot give that privilege exclusively to someone else. Host the questions before the thet we have to explain great irony of this is that this amendment was one of three written to address the civil rights of black citizens in the u. S. After dred scott and the civil war. It was a case with white butchers who came to the u. S. , the first challenge of the 14th amendment. Court does the louisiana the law created involuntary servitude . Does it deny equal protection of the law . Does it deprive individuals of their property without due process of law . Lawfinally, does the violated the 14th amendment privileges and immunities law . Those were the questions the court was asked. We heard John Campbell the case on behalf of the butchers. There were a number of them consolidated into one. Who was arguing on the other side . Michael one of the late attorneys is an interesting guy named thomas durant,. He was a slave owner but is influenced by socialism. He was in new orleans and had become kind of a radical republican in favor of black rights. The time of the 1866 new orleans riot. It is made up of a man of men who rake in the hall and start killing everyone inside. Flees, moves to d. C. Come and becomes a lawyer that argues in front of the Supreme Court. Hes one of the key lawyers behalf. On host of the state of louisiana . Theael on behalf of Crescent City livestock company. Host there were lawyers. There were two defendants in the case, state of louisiana the Crescent City livestock. There were two lawyers. Carpenter isthew knee deep in the ratification rates in the congress of the amendment. Hes someone who knows the meaning of the 14th amendment. If you wanted someone who knows original intent, carpenter would have been there as the was being made. Grove, you are on for the two guests. Caller my question is for her one of the school scholars. Is the clan involved in the case . Michael in louisiana it wouldnt be the kkk, it would be the knights and the Crescent City white league. Theres part lots of theres Paramilitary Group known as the legion. Front assault on reconstruction lodged by the politically,rty theed by the night of knight comedia. Killing people in the freed men and political leaders. Theres campbell who doesnt pick up a gun but picks up his legal briefs. And a number of other lawyers. They go to court and combined it a full blown rule or ruin tosachusettsive resistance reconstruction. Host so you said the case had to be organized twice. Why is that . Why does that happen . The first time it is argued one of the justices is indeposed. You have nine justices but one of them is unavailable and the court isnt in a position to decide the case. I think they understand as i read before, they had the understanding. Momentous decision. We only have one chance to have the first chance to interpret 14th amendment to the constitution. They need to get a full court in order to decide the case. For reargument and have this remarkable argument and just to underscore said. Ou if you think about the four issues that are before the court, it is really the heart of amendments. Uction you have the 13th amendment and have the three principal provisions of the 14th amendment, the due process, equal protection, and the privileges or immunities clause. In certainly to lawyers in present day lawyers, you think the slaughterhouse case as the great cases about the privileges and the immunities clause. The way they decided it, the last case functionally about immunities clause. Campbell had it all on the cable. He didnt leave anything to chance. Equal the due process and protection also available. It is one of the interesting history thatcts of his decisionr and focused on. Other two have been hardly pressed before at the court. He says very little about the clauses. Part of the legacy of the slaughterhouse case is it is just important for what it decided about privileges or immunities clause. More important for the sort of impetus that it gave litigants and subsequent justices to breathe the dueater life into process clause and the equal protection clause than the framers of the 14th amendment have intended. David in eden prairie, minnesota. Whats your question for us . Caller equal protection is based in large part of a classification of people be it race or something else. Only argument they are making is that their onssification was based being butchers . Paul i think their equal protection argument was based on the fact that the opportunity to be a butcher should have been been open to all. A classification in a sense there were certain people in, certain people who were out, and i think in that classic is a nonsuspect class with current lawyers. We call it classic nonsuspect class, equal protection clause argument. That was coupled with a due really argument that was again what current lawyers would call a substive due process argument. They werent argues that somehow you could have the exclusive butchers across the river if only you gave better notice and an additional hearing. Were saying this was not the kind of statue that the state could pass at all. That it violated sort of a broader concept of due process. I think, yout know, viewers should stay tuned for in the lochner case when thats discussed. That becomes something thats adopted by a majority of the a period of the courts history. All of the arguments are made. Ultimately campbell focused, and Justice Miller on the immunity clause. Host do you have something you to add . Michael no, i was thinking about the equal justice. Butchers were arguing they werent being aloud to use their beenrty because they had slaughtering on property. Suddenly they have to go slaughter someone else. Model that you paul that would be consistent with the model. Hink the critical thing this really feeds into Justice Millers understanding of the equal protection clause at the hes writing the slaughterhouse cases. The one thing they werent was the law operated anything like the black codes. Like the only africanafricanamericans and not whites could get involved in the monopoly butcher trade across the river. It certainly wasnt something where this was being secured only to whites. I think, you know, justice is not entirely consistent with the way the Supreme Court subsequently interprets the equal protection clause. I think he has in mind very much behind the equal protection clause and the fact that it wasty signed not just to equal in every classification, but to suggest that you couldnt have things the black code. He says thats the one equaling purpose of the protection clause. Host next is a call from chuck in renton, washington. Caller hello. My question is kind of a factor. Brought up obliquely the carpetue around baggers. During the period and the false pass, the came to scoundrels werent just played upon the south in the reconstruction period. Dilemma play into the termsas faced in cultural and also in terms of the law down there . Did any of it come before the u. S. Supreme court in that time . Them not sure i understand question. Certainly to the extent that the question is alluding to the fact that you have not just the idea of the carpet beggars, but there were efforts at the time to protection federal power to protection everyone, recentlycularly the freed slaves from being subject to violence by others down in the south. I mean that is a part of this period of constitutional history. Theres the cook shank case that well get a chance to mention at least in passing that was involved in the application of one of the civil rights statues to a situation they are also coming out of louisiana. Those cases also came to the Supreme Court at the same time. Want to put a slightly broader context here, what the court is wrestling with during the period is not just this particular case and what to with the reconstruction amendment. I think there are also dealing during theality that civil war there was an opportunity to extent federal power in ways that the union had never seen before. Think that reconstruction was an effort that use in the a particularlyr broad scope of the federal power against the states. See in thisrt to period is a reaction we the court that the pendulum has to swing back to the states. There cant be quite this aggressive assertion of federal power. If i could just give you one bringsic that really this home, in the entire period of our constitutional history theeen the beginning of constitution in 1789 and 1869 acts were a total of four of congress that were struck down as unconstitutional. Yet between 1870 and 1875 there congress thatf are struck down as unconstitution nap. Case, thehterhouse crookshank case, all of these as part of theod Supreme Court sort of saying the pendulum really has to be swinging back. We cant have quite this aggressive assertion of federal power. Critics are saying that the Supreme Court just lost their nerve. Both think that, you know, sides in the sense can point to just the facts of what the court how theyonting and resolve those cases and support their argument. The casesie all of together, if marburymadison decided the way it was, they werent be deciding were unconstitutional . Paul it is good you brought that up. There were acts of the slaughterhouse that are a little bitly marbury. The genius of the decision that anef Justice Marshall wrote important decision. If you come out the other way, thes not entirely clear decision would have been enforced. He would have picked a major fight. Theres a similar sense here slaughterhouse cases. If Justice Miller flips his vote and theres five votes the other they start saying that all sorts of common law privileges are enforced by the 14th amendment against the sets up the that federal Supreme Court as stateing all sorts of laws without really any text in the constitution to strike them down. I think, you know, no one will know what would have happened if decides the slaughterhouse case the other way. It would have been a very aggressive assertion of Judicial Authority to be sure. Michael miller says that. This will make the Supreme Court thethe federal judiciary perpetual sense. Bit is stephen j. Field. He loves the idea. He loves the idea of a court use natural principles to overturn in particular legislation. Descent. In his just like fidel miller. We see whats coming here. Coming from campbell. Up to something that we are not going to open. Host it should be pointed out steve was another appointee. Jurisprudence is often a natural law. Advocate of using natural law. E program entering british common law. Thank you very much. Changes it back to a completely different tradition. That may have made a difference the cases were being litigated in the Louisiana State court. By the time they get to the Supreme Court, thats really not going to come into play. What really comes into play is a look at the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion is that continuing to be one of the major themes of judicial review today. Which is how much do you look framers of the 14th amendment were trying to do. They were looking at the plain language of what they passed. Thats really the debate here. Because what campbell and his argument and the dissenters are look, these words and due process, equal protection, privileges or immunities. They dont say anything about freed slaves. They seem like they are applicable to all. They see the powers that do this. Miller on the other hand is at all of this and saying, look, this isnt ancient history. The reconstruction amendments passed five years ago. I was around there. I know what it is about. These were protecting africanamericans. They werent about protections cultures in the world. Heard what was a decision. Heres a paragraph we picked out. Then thate clear there is a citizenships of the United States and the citizenships of state which are distinct from each other and which depend on different characteristics and circumstances. We have only 15 minutes left. We need to get on to the next part of the story. Me ask you what happened to the butchers who lost the case. History after . Well, even the ahimty of the butchers. The cut a deal with Crescent City livestock where into a newnd merge slaughterhouse. Are thinkingtchers we didnt agree. They keep the lawsuit up. Thats why it is reaching the Supreme Court. After the case, the battles of and whereterhouses the slaughtering should be go on theon even after reconstruction lapses and were back into a legislature largely by white democrats. The slaughter house situation deeplyes to be a contested one. Springfield, new jersey. You are on. Yes. Questions. O the first one concerned with how when the 14th amendment was originally written the privileges were unique as with seeing the protecting while the equal protection clause was protecting. The question has to do with why was equal clause seen just. Second question has to do with how the Supreme Court and slaughterhouse cases have protecting under the clause twice and only in 1999 that one remained on the book. My question my second is can our two guests here perceive any legal issues the future that could be cases . Eeed on applicable michael im going to let paul handle this. Paul so i guess theres something about this. One is that the privileges for immunities clause was principally designed to protect say. Ights, as you i think the due process clause certainly if it was going to be consistently with the due process clause of the fifth amendment probably was envisioned as protecting procedural rights. Equal protection clause is clearly envisioned in avoiding classifications and differential differential which treatment is something were still fighting about today. Justice millerat does and really it is very close passage that was just read is that he says you are misunderstanding the campbell and dissenters. This is not about privileges for immunities. They show him all of the various privileges that might exist. If you want to be protected against those or if you want those protected, you have to look your steak up. The only thing that the privilege is for immunities privilegesects are that are uniquely privileges of the u. S. Citizenship, National Citizenship, and miller does his best. He actually feels like, you knows when hes done it. He knows hes just interpreted the privileges to immunity down to nearly nothing. It through where hes a little bit ashamed about this as well. Privileges and immunities of National Citizenship. Are thingspically that were protected bit provisions of the bills of the rights like you have the national privilege to go into congress and have your grievances heard. Says. What it it is really to identify things that he has preserved. Thats what i think most legal scholars when they look at the center of the decision and that the centers is you just read the privileges or immunities clause out of the the unitedn of states. Decisionce the miller or the miller sorry ive lost the words. The millers argument silenced the 14th amendment and the privilege of immunities clause are signs today the High Court May be ready to reinvigorate the clause. Heres a clip of retired Justice John Paul stevens on the clause. Were going to listen and wrap here. Discussion the right of newly arrived citizens to the same privileges immunities enjoyed by other citizens is clearly identified. 14theater importance, the amendment citizen clause expressly equates and does not similarly situated citizens based on the location residents. Ior let Congress Pass the statue does not alter our analysis. Court has consistently held that congress may not authorize the states to violate the 14th amendment. Citizens of the United States whether rich or poor have the be citizensose to of the state wherever they reside. Host that was John Paul Stevens on the 14th amendments prove hims and immunities clause. Legale talk about the legacy, there are a number of major cases in which it was cited. Of them. Some plessyshank in 1879, thats ferguson, and a case paul clement knows well. They argue that 2010 is the mcdonald versus chicago. What should we know about the legacy and the long tail of this . To start . T we are debating about the debatence and where the is . Michael i think paul is to answer. Ituated there were people advocates the the courtouse, and had an opportunity to do that and did it. Im happy to start it off and turn it over to you. List. An impressive many scholars believe it is the privileges or immunities clause the framersned by of the provision to incooperate all of the bill of rights directly against the State Governments. Your First Amendment rights and the supremewas in court didnt get around to protecting against State Government action until decades decades later. That was designed to be extended government. Thats the argument that many people have made. So instead of having a citation of only a handful of cases, he well go that route. There would be hundreds of cases. Cases every year where the court would be applying the immunities clause of the 14th amendment and not half of it. It is the same provisions were incooperated against the states, done through the due process clause which i think a lot of historians and a lot of say really isnt faithful to the original interpretation of the constitution. Just to give you one illustration of why that might one of theerence is things thats different about privileges or immunities clause from the protection clause and due process clause is the privileges or immunities clause gives the protection to the citizens. The equal protection clause and the due process clause protect people. The First Amendment is being incooperated against state peopleents, then the that are protecting by that have to includeerminated corporations. Citizens on the other hand is interpreted by the Supreme Court a long time ago not to include corporations. Distinctions that legal actuallydebate could have real world consequences as to whether the First Amendment applies notitution just to individual speech but applies to corporate speech when is being regulated by the states. Michael i think i would be i will give lots of emails tomorrow if we didnt mention theres some evidence that some of the mod call republicans in the amendment things that suggest they met the privileges at the of jacob because howard. At the same time, theres lots of evidence out there as well everyone who loved the 14th amendment or the people that wanted to vote for the ratification of the states wanted it to be like that. Wanted that framers to be the case, they could have just changed the wording in the 14th amendment and said the first eight amendments of the constitution that would be governmentcentral are now part of the states. It would be solved. Instead, some talk about the protected andg some dont. The long view is thousands and and peoplef panels closely with the framers of the intended. Ment have thats with all of the professors. Clear that be everyone who has written an article knows this is something seriously. Very host a quick question from you. Caller sure. Book. The Justice Miller was a proceed character. He said he was appointed to be a reliable republican. He was. Weve had instances that were geniuses and charles whitaker. Are we making a mistake in the Supreme Court allices as if they were legal with the prudences or should we really take a look at as maybe just a lot of the result of political process . Im going to let paul answer that. I disagree. And definitely a political justice. Me answer this way. Theres a lot said about the cases. We conveyed a sense of how important the cases are eventually. With the 14th amendments, you individuals against the State Governments and not just the federal governments. It takes a while pause of the get aterhouse case to full promise of the 14th amendment. It is a central, central case to interpreting that amendment. A lot can be said about the decision pro or con. The one thing that couldnt be said about the decision at least was justme was that it a product of politics. Decision. Was a 54 you had three republican appointees on both sides. I think that cautions against interpreting Supreme Court justices old and new as just actors orlitical people who were appointed for a noticular purpose and are distinguished scholars. I mean, i make my living arguing justices. F the i really feel like certainly the Current Group of justices are real scholars, and they are really looking to decide the legal issues in the cases. I think thats warn out in the slaughterhouse cases. Ill let the professors give a full rebuttal. And wellcholarly written opinion. It has been criticized bitterly scholars. I also think that it is a thesion that really applied traditional tools of at least looking at the intent behind the legislature. Which is a debate were still having to this very day. Justice miller said he had aspirations unfulfilled. Key figurese of the in the unraveling of the legacy. Does he deserve that . Deserve it. Doesnt he didnt intend it. Reconstruction collapses and White Supremacy is restored, africanamericans could have returned and their bill of fight jim crowo legislation. When you look for where that doesnt happen, it is the slaughterhouse cases. If you are reading the letters or you read the opinion itself, it is full of ringing language to protect the africanamerican rights, you that is not what was intended. Had a caller that whatever happened to John Campbell . Michael John Campbell suffers in newus accident orleans that makes it hard for him to travel. He wants to continue arguing. He moves to baltimore. There he continues his legal practice. A few more cases in front of the court that are antireconstruction, he passes. Host we have a viewer on ustter that says please tell again where to purchase the book for landmark cases. A small book that is were selling it at cost 8. 95. Available on our web site. If you go to cspan. Org landmarkcases. It is written by tony mauro who covering for 30 years now. He did a summary of each of the 12 cases. It will help you with the background as we proceed. About out of time. As we close here, just in quick summary, why should someone care the landmark case as being one of them the slaughterhouse cases . Michael for the same reason they should care about reconstruction. Americans areas that have a blank spot in their historical memory. The area that defines the the civil war. The slaughterhouse cases were in part about defining the meaning civil war. Host you would say, paul clement . Paul i counted six of the the series that are major constitutional cases that involve not action by the government but by action by the State Governments. Arereason those constitutional questions, the reason that when the State Government does something to it, you cant like to the all the time United States Supreme Court is the 14th amendment. It is the fact that