Decisions. Number 759, bernies miranda, Petitioner Versus arizona. Number 218, roe v. Wade. The most famous decisions are once that the court took were quite unpopular. 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 helped stick together because they believe in the rule of law. Good evening. Welcome to cspan in the National Constitution centers landmark cases. Our 12 part series looks at some of the Supreme Courts most interesting and impactful historical decisions over the course of our countrys history. We are going to be talking about a case you might not know much about, but by the and you understand why it is on our last. Its called the slaughterhouse cases, it was the first time that the Supreme Court reviewed the newly enacted 14th amendment to the constitution. Let me introduce you to our two guests, here to tell you about the history and importance of these cases. Paul clement served as solicitor general during the bush 43 administration, and he is argued more than 75 cases before the Supreme Court. Paula, great to have you. Thanks, nice to be here. Michael ross is illegal historian and the author of a biography of the justice youll be hearing about tonight, samuel freemen miller. Its called justice, a shattered dream. He teaches at the university of maryland. Thanks for coming. Well, i just want to have to make the case to the audience, why is this on our list. Why didnt the slaughterhouse calluses matter . The reason is, as you suggested, the first opportunity the Supreme Court has to interpret the 14th amendment. The reason that is so important is that the 14th amendment is what essentially takes the guarantees of the bill of rights eventually and constrains the actions of the State Governments, if you think about the bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution, all of them by their terms were really designed to restrict the federal government. And what it did to the people in the citizens, and thats really at this point that we go through a civil war where people finally realize that it will be the State Governments that they are concerned about. There is a process of adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. They were strict with states, they are tremendously important in slaughterhouse cases for the very first time the Supreme Court interprets the 14th amendment. Mike ross, in your book you said this decision influenced the course of Race Relations for a century. And it continues to shape constitutional law today. Make the case. Well, in the slaughterhouse cases clause for the debate among historians and all professors and legal scholars ever since it is the privileges and im in the closets. The question of what that meant and whether or not it actually applied to the bill of rights. And the slaughterhouse cases, the Supreme Court goes down the road of the amenities clause does not do that. And it becomes a long entangled story of how your bill of rights rights individually get incorporated against your State Government. This is also an extraordinarily important case because the civil war does not end on a deck of a battleship like at the end of world war ii, and it takes a long time before congress decide what their terms are going to be to the defeated south for them to regain their place in the union. Many people see the 14th amendment as that history, agree to the terms and we will allow you to have a restored place. The slaughterhouse cases really are about slaughterhouses and butchers, will learn more about how this case began and how it made its way to the Supreme Court. First, lets back up and learn more about the 14th amendment itself. If you watch last week, we did the dred scott decision. And we learned at the end of the program that the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment really a remedy for that decision the terrible decision made at the droughts got case. Lets listen to senator Patrick Leahy of vermont who is the senior democrat on the Senate Judiciary committee talking about the 14th amendment and why that was such an important thing for the United States of america. Lets listen. The 14th amendment . Thats 150 years now since the second founding, part of the second founding. Why do you call it . That well, i think we had the founding. The fathers and the original constitution, but when those series of amendments came through, its like the United States became more aware of what they are and what slavery ending and so on, that we had to treat all people the same. Having considered now, it took a long time, and in some places in this country its still going on. But it was in the second founding and the Second Coming up the United States. Similarly he thinking about the second founding of our country. Just so you understand the Legal Framework of our discussion. It says, all persons born and naturalize in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of, and our citizens of the United States. No state summit or enforce any law which should approve 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 the law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. You heard our guests talk about the privileges and immunities clause which is the heart of the legal challenges of this case. So set the stage for the passage of the 14th amendment. Obviously, after droughts got, the country passes the civil war. Tell us how it caykyc when the civil war, and there is no peace. However, the man who does it is andrew johnson. Theyre able to be reelected, immediately after the civil war without giving African American men the right to vote that philip with confederates, and we can to pass the black coats. They only apply to black people, and say that black people cannot meet after sundown, but it also had much more onerous laws attached, that each january African Americans had to produce a document showing where they were going to work from the coming year. They were sentenced to work on a plantation to pay off the fine for the coming year, and the core of the black code list to end store slavery inform, if not in law. And the black old shocked a lot of people, it seemed that over 700,000 americans dead, the warm and more than that. And when congress came back into session the following december, a long struggle goes on with president johnson as what his vision of reconstruction would be. Out of that comes the 14th amendment, which will be congress his terms of the south, and included in the language you just read, lots of phrases like the equal protection clause. If you are going to have to law that they cannot be after sundown, but you cannot have one that is specific. What about the vanquished southerners that felt as if they were and unoccupied land . You have some newly freed slaves, the friedman and taking advantage of the reopening of the south, but then you have a number of people who are in the south, they participated in the civil war. The last thing you want to see is federal authority being imposed on washington, in part because it was designed to protect the newly freed slaves. In part, they fought a war where they were trying to vindicate statesrights and although they lost the war, i dont think their hearts and minds have changed in the process. Part of what become so controversial in the south about 13th and 14th and 15th amendment was that it was it was idea of asserting the federal government will on all sorts of issues that had been left to the states governments and to the states. So, our story takes place in the reconstruction south of louisiana and new orleans. Was new orleans typical of the south, or where there other areas down there . Its the place that everyone is looking to see if reconstruction would work, because it has the afro creole community, it class a very well educated former vp persons of color that came out of the french and spanish culture. They are people who can put the lie to confederates claims that African Americans are too ignorant to serve in office. In new orleans, there is all kinds of tumult during this period, with various militias and every direction and we have africanamerican serving on juries, African Americans on the police force, African American detectives solving highprofile crimes, on the verge of integrating Public Schools, and there are a lot of people, even with the presence of afro creoles, there are a lot of white people who are extraordinarily unhappy. Now, will get into our setting the stage for the actual case. And the past couple weeks there are some big characters. There are two important characters in this, and institutions of people who are part of this. One of those is the butchers Benevolent Association, and other groups that reflect their interest. To set the stage, you do have a dynamic where the slaughter houses are in new orleans proper and there are a number of butchers who are there, a number are from gas kidney and have the tradition of being involved in the trade. Its part of their identity and i think what sets the stage for this is the idea that you have the slaughter houses that are very high population centers. Anyone who has read the jungle knows that the slaughterhouse is even 50 60 years later, but the time we are talking about here is an incredible source of pasturelands and the reason why new orleans had a reputation, not only being a place that we construction can really succeed, but also the reputation where you dont want to be there in the summer because you might not live in a pine box. The metropolis of america. When they get to court, when they filed suit, and id like to have a brief biography but they hire as their attorney this person by the name of John Campbell who is jon campbell . John campbell i call the evil genius of america, its the former Supreme Court justice who is in the majority in the jets got decision, and hes from alabama. When the civil war breaks out, he resigns to join the confederacy where he becomes Jefferson Davis is assistant secretary of war. In that role, he says a number of things that did not hold up well in the 21st century, and hes at the end of the war robert e. Lee and others in those last moments of the confederacy are opposing that they employ black church, that violates everything on which the confederacy is based. He is arrested after the Lincoln Association because they think they have a part in it, and is held in jail and come out very embittered. And will make the legal career in new orleans after radical reconstruction began fighting the reconstruction government. Virtually everything that he does, every case hes litigating is being done to thwart the reconstruction, the biracial reconstruction government of louisiana. He says things like, we have africans in a place all around us. And every day they are bartering away their duties and positions and he says anything, even violent insurrection is better than the insanity that seems to prevail. We will also be hearing about Justice Miller. You wrote the book about him. You said in the book that historians have long considered, excuse me, miller one of the courts most important justices. Can you tell us why . One of them, the slaughterhouse cases. It has such a tremendous impact on the 14th amendment that anyone who issued that opinion is going to get credit as and a important justice. But hes also a force. Miller is his big, pearly john goodman like figure who was the first justice from the trans mississippi was who prides himself on cutting through the bs when lawyers go on and on and say get to the point. I said, what point . Any point. Some point. And everyone who dealt with him on the court throughout the gilded age was just a force of nature when he entered the room. Paul, when youve been in front of these justices, id like to have you think about these justices. We have a former Supreme Court justice who resigns, despite the confederacy, represents the confederacy, arguing before his former colleagues, heres another dynamic, just as mueller who will write the opinion loathed John Campbell. Right. This is something that we have not seen in the modern era, but something believed the court, and then appeared in front of the court. Obviously, the justices are going to decide these cases, and theyre going to decide based on their view of the law. But you cant help but imagine that the personalities have something to do with it. But when you have somebody arguing the case that one of the justices has an intense, not just personal dislike about political dislike of leaving the court its something that just says mueller cant really forgive. So to be hearing the argument from that particular advocate asked to change the dynamic as a way that that justice and some of the other justices are processing the case. Time to learn more about what got this case into litigation. We are going to visit new orleans, and a piece of video. You think about new orleans in the time period, all the cattle being raised in the midwest and being brought through the mississippi for slaughter. Lots of independent voters are working there without regulation, and you learn more about the conditions that people were protesting in the violence that led to the creation of this communal property, the slaughterhouse Landing Company that the butchers were protesting. Lets watch. With all of the refuge, all of the human waste, all of the animal ways and the dunk, delivers, the hearts, with all that being dumped in the river, its no reason that the city was famous as a metropolis, the city of the dead. But 1860, there would have been at least 84 slaughterhouses, butcher shops in the general area. The whole place was one royal stench, and when most of the Meat Industry had been centralized and concentrated. Faux fur in this direction is where the towns main livestock landing was. And that is where all of the livestock was coming from the central louisiana, an estimated 300 heads of cattle and pork were dropped off, or delivered at that landing, at that wharf every year. And there would be a separate group of drivers, that with stampede through town, past schools and hospitals to all of these butcher shops. And in this direction, one block away was what was called the nooses wharf. That was where all of the awful, in trails, the dunk, delivers were taken and then dumped in the middle of the river. The problem was less than two miles downriver where the intake for the towns waterworks of storms, and a lot of those in trail, and that filth had collected around those pipes. The people that live near here, which is not that far away were up in arms and we are trying for many years prior to the enactment of the slaughterhouse case to have these Meat Industries centralized and one location, preferably downriver, even on the west bank or the east bank and that was the impetus for the enactment of the slaughterhouse case. So before i hear more about, it and like to tell you more about how to get involved, and i hope you will. You can call us with your comments about this, case well have our lines divided and go to calls. Two zero two 2027488901 if you live in the western half of the u. S. Use the hashtag landmark cases, and i have to twitter feed here. Finally, you can be part of that as well and some of those will make it into our discussion. You heard about the deplorable conditions, how did it come to be that they sought redress for the legislature for the problem. When you pumped water and there be all kinds of stuff floating in it. They really wanted to redress for it. They wanted to redress since the Spanish Colonial period. They had either moved the river, or down below the city. And it happened again and again, but the butchers were kind of a larger group that managed to weasel their way back into the city every time, and they were very tightknit, and kept people out of the business and fought back. The regulations always failed. They were not a very well liked group, but they see people as those who put their health and jeopardy. And what happens is the legislature during reconstruction decides that there strategy to lure people back to the republican parties to they can survive after the removal of federal troops is that they would get back a number of things that new orleans always wanted done, including moving back the slaughterhouse of the city and and will put racial anonymity aside for progress. They really think and they say they did not like the legislator but are actually getting good things done. Of course, is not the way its going to turn out. We are going to next take you to the legislator where this piece of legislation was brought in, and its an interesting because a legislator in the reconstruction south and particularly louisiana. There are racial politics attached to it, lets watch. We are in an area to Louisiana State museum that is for radical reconstruction. We are looking at a ballot box from about 1875, and the box is important, not only because its a unique object, but also because of what it represents. Voting rights in louisiana and reconstruction. After the civil war, and new group of people was able to vote for the first time, African Americans to change the competition of the state legislator. Were looking at some of the African Americans who were elected in to the state legislature during radical reconstruction. It consisted of newly elected African Americans. One of the most interesting figures is oscar dunn. Oscar dunn was the first man of african descent who was elected Lieutenant Governor of the states. And he said his Lieutenant Governor for several states and then was replaced by pbs pence baku served as Lieutenant Governor but went out to serve for 35 days as the governor of louisiana, the first African American to serve as governor of the state. He served from late december 1872 until january 1873, about three months later, the Supreme Court handed down the slaughterhouse verdict. An addition to the fact that the racial composition of Louisiana State legislature changed, and now thousands of northerners moved to the south looking for business opportunities. Many who want to establish the slaughterhouse were in fact from the north. Like you are looking at is a carpet back, and the carpet is typical of delegates that northerners wouldve brought with him when they moved. And it was used by a pejorative way. Taking advantage of the economic devastation brought on by the civil war. There you have. The Louisiana Legislature with African American members, passes the slaughterhouse law which will require the creation of the slaughterhouse company and the butchers would be required to move and do their work there. Im going to take a caller, hello, you are on the air. Yes. I want to commend cspan for this wonderful series, i find a very educational. I have a very simple question to your panel, and that is, historic in 18 hundreds, white women were considered citizens but were not allowed to vote. My question is, is the right to vote a privilege of National Citizenship . That could says i have never story, but the 15th amendment is past specifically to deal with the issue of voting. So Voting Rights are not conferred by the 14th amendment, and are not conferred to women just because they are citizens of the United States under the privileges or immunities clause. And the right to vote is enshrined in the 15th amendment, and does not extend by their terms. You have to wait until that 19th amendment before that is protected, but there is an interesting aspect of the privileges or minutes lost because one of the that follows the slaughterhouse cases involves an effort by a woman lawyer to get admitted to the state bar of illinois, and her argument was the ability to be an attorney in practice before the bar was a privilege of citizenship, and the Supreme Court was applying some of the same reasoning it would adopt in the slaughterhouse cases, rejecting that argument. And did that a female attorney did not have the public to practice law in this country. Our next caller, in the state of louisiana. Youre on. Id like to ask why so many of these 14th amendment ever change in louisiana. And my answer would be that again, new orleans and louisiana are central to the reconstruction story. And you not only have the african reels which are going to make the chance of reconstruction work in new orleans, but you have 10,000 former slaves that move into the city of new orleans, and then you have all these ex confederates, because most of the south its destroyed. They all move to new orleans to, and james long treat all end up and new orleans. You have this incredibly tumultuous place where you have this proud class of African Americans who are going to be in court all the time litigating their new rights, and that is going to lead it to the plessy decision, and you have other people trying to deny that, and louisiana is going to have the nights of the white material, and amid all this tumult over whats going to happen with reconstruction three of the greatest of the 19th century 14th amendment cases emerge. Next, and alabama. You are on. This question is for mr. Comment. Outstanding lawyer you said earlier that you argued in the slaughterhouse cases and i may have misunderstood you about how many justices did that. My recollection is if they argued a case before the Supreme Court after he stepped down from the court, he represented puerto rico and he may have died right before the decision was handed down. Am i correct or wrong . You may be correct, and he stepped down from the court, and not serving as a senior justice, which a number of the justices, for example Justice Oconnor and souter are no longer serve on the Supreme Court but are still article three arrests and sit from time to time on the courts of appeals. So its been a while since weve had a justice who not only steps down but actually retires from article three entirely. And its even in a position to argue, but that would be the most recent example to happen. If you need to the colin experience, i know a number of you are watching for the first time, here is how you do. It you call in, and we dont answer your call until just about time to put you on the air, so keep ringing and we put you in. We have another hour ahead of, us a lot more to tell you on the story of the slaughterhouse cases. The reconstruction age in the United States, and what life was like in the south, which is where our case and prayers. In fact, we return by video to the city of new orleans because the legal case centers on the creation of the Crescent City livestock landing at slaughterhouse company. We will learn more about it. This is a general area and st. Bernard parish where the Crescent City livestock operates, and we go from the levee, were standing on the levers behind me and we go back, at least a quarter of a mile to long city blocks. And there is on the side, and the other side of the manmade levy that we are standing on, this side is the bad sure. You can still see it down here, probably some remains of the cattle landing. There is a big catalan ending here, where they were unloaded and herded into the slaughterhouse. There was also a rail line that would bring the process and packet shimmied out, and this is the area where all of the butchers in the city of new orleans wouldve had to operate. A lot of them were gas these were french butchers from gas skinny or had ethnic roots in the gas can area of france. And they do not want to be pushed out or taken over and centralized, even though the understanding was in the law that they would have to be offered a butchers stall. You would not play favorites. But they decided to carry that case forward and, of course the rest is constitutional history. Michael ross, when they took the case to the Louisiana Courts, what was the heart of the case . The heart of the case initially is working even under the Louisiana State constitution to claim that there had been denied equal protection, but where the case really gets interesting is where jon campbell and the other lawyers that are teamed up with campbell get involved because they see an opportunity in the 14th amendment, and amendment that the ex confederate press of new orleans had held their knows about, this is an amendment that is going to force federal power upon us. Suddenly, they found an opportunity in the broad language of that amendment which did not say anything about the race of who it would apply to. And use an amendment that most people hated on the side of the butchers. Arguing that they were being denied equal protection, that they are being denied their property without due process. And they were being denied the privilege or immunity to practice their vocation free from government intrusion. They even went as far to argue that it violated the 13th amendment that requiring but years to slaughter was constituting of slavery, involuntary servitude. You can see campbell laughing his evil laugh as he used this amendment that most ex confederates had seen to fight the neighborhood. Now that you have been packaged as a way to thwart local celebrities, and all of them are cheering along to follow day today as the baseball. Heres the irony, new orleans was suffering and had a cholera because of a legal challenge. Thats an irony, and to put race to the side, but not everybody fit that destruction. I do think this was seen over time as less about the butchers and more about the fact that you had this past by the biracial legislature, and theres also a sense that the people are going to benefit from this where African American, and also carpetbaggers coming down with the financing for the new slaughterhouse across the river. There is a real opportunity to turn something that the people of new orleans had been clambering for four decades and turned it into something that could be whipped up into actually what happened in the Louisiana Courts . And the Louisiana Courts, its a very complex situation. At the lower level in new orleans you had seven District Courts, and there were two judges that had going to be sympathetic. They had attempted early on to be a conservative republican, but grew disinfected when they demand that the schools be including, and turn to end now sides with campbell and the people who are fighting the by rachel legislation. The lower level, you have two judges who are going to constantly issue injunctions on the side of campbell, stopping the slaughterhouse, rebuke people from going to the slaughterhouse, etc. But the louisiana Supreme Court were all the proponents of reconstruction, and would reverse the injunction. This goes on and on. Not just in the slaughterhouse, but in the biloxi of legislature to attack, and they want to build a canal from the mississippi to the gulf of mexico. Its in the levee repair and a rule or ruin strategy where campbell and his allies are trying to discredit this government, claiming that everything is the result of corruption. And so the whole process down. It works very effectively, it tightens them up for many years. They cannot get anything done. Finally, what the legislature does a says, we cant take it anymore and they create a new District Court that says that this is the only District Court that can issue an injunction. They put a republican judge in that court. From then on in, it starts at the lower level courts. At that point, cant doesnt care anymore because he has moved his whole chain of argument to the federal court. Using the 14th amendment, and now he can make the same claims in federal court that he had done successfully in state court. Lets take a question. Id like to thank you all for doing this and my question is how does the 14th amendment get past when there were 23 senators excluded from the voting, and one from new jersey when they were back in the part of being a union . Can you take it . Deferred my across . The Congress Makes it a requirement that the state legislation has to ratify the 14th amendment in order to be riyadh admitted to the union, and be allowed to have federal representatives. So that is the question, theres always the controversy that the congress that passed the amendment wasnt a fully staffed congress but that has been solved by the fact that you needed a three quarters vote of the congress, and did not specify that all the states have to be in place for that to happen. Can you tell us how that happened . How was it, had it standing . Was it decided with the louisiana Supreme Court . Was there a conflict . You saw the federal issue, and that is how you get the Supreme Court. And in a sense that is the strategy, frustrating in Louisiana Courts, where they know they cannot get the relief that they want. They understand, they can provide a federal issue, they can get to the Supreme Court of the United States. And thats where the 13th and 14th amendment come in as not just something that works in the sense of this tremendous chutzpah of taking these provisions that were clearly designed to foster reconstruction and to protect African Americans, and using them as a weapon. These amendments designed to be a shield for African Americans in the reconstructed south, and using them as the sort to cut down their newly enacted legislation, that is something that i think, in the exercise to do that, but also the inside that he would know what, the former u. S. Supreme Court Justice that these federal cases, these federal claims are as thick as the Supreme Court review. You have to tell us about the Supreme Court that this landed in. It was the chief justice at the time . The chief justice is morrison white, is that correct . Not simon chase . No, its simon chase. Sorry, im having a meltdown on live tv. Okay, were here to help. You the chief justice assignment who doesnt have long to live. And then its a court that is made up of lincoln and grant appointees, largely. Theres a couple of people left over, Nathan Clifford from the eu canada administration, and this is a court made up of justices appointed by lincoln and grant, and you would think that the court made up of justices appointed by lincoln and graham would all be people sympathetic to reconstruction. And it doesnt turn out to be that way. Steven field and Joseph Bradley and others at soured on reconstruction, and will be a very divided court for that reason. I read, and this is a bit of a sidebar, but when lincoln made these appointments to the Supreme Court, he had one litmus test, and that was whether or not they were going to support the union but did not delve into their positions and other issues. Is that correct . Its absolutely correct. Hes in the midst of a civil war and has done all kinds of controversial things from suspending abs corpus to the blockade, etc and he wants judges that he is convinced will uphold his war powers, and that is the litmus test, and their issues on Economic Issues and Everything Else are secondary. And he appoints mostly republicans, but even a unionist immigrant because of all the things that field had been saying were going to be a staunch supporter of the war powers. And he gets what he asks for. The court is, during the war going to uphold lincolns positions, and after the war has in peacetime, some of them are going to turn and declare some of the things that were done like the legal tender and the arrest of some people buy military tribunes. We have the names of the justices on the screens, but one of the books described it as a rapper and distinguished court. Would you agree with that . I would not agree. I think when you read the papers of the gentlemen, theres a few blow hards thomas wayne is a little hard no relation. You are dealing with justices of great intellect, i dont always agree, but these are serious individuals. Carol is watching us in omaha, youre on the air. I dont mean to denigrate the importance of the case, but there were also cities across the country that had the awful problem and time took care of them, in omaha nebraska, we had the slaughterhouses flowing into the United States as recently as 1940. But the time before that. Thank you. I dont know the story about the time of addressing these problems, but i do know that what they were doing in new orleans was modeled on what other cities had done, new york and other cities in europe of having a centralized slaughterhouse, and some of them were municipal and not put together by private investment. But new orleans did not have any money during reconstruction. And having private investors build a needed slaughterhouse and giving them a 25 your franchise to charge runs in the slaughterhouse was not unreasonable, given the Economic Situation at the time. But they were modeling it on that, but i dont know what happened. If you just had a laissezfaire approach, where eventually something gives, i think with many people dying from cholera and yellow fever, not the slaughter houses for the cause of that, but they did not know that. It was time to act. I think the point that i would make was, if you just look at this as being a case about the slaughterhouses and the legislative efforts to deal with him, you might not think that this is that big of a deal. On the other hand, i think with a number of the cases that it will be discussed in the series, you can look at the miranda case being about a criminal arrest, and the criminal arrest that happened every day. But what happened these case is so significant is if they go all the way to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in the case address is something that really has a profound and lasting significance. One of the things that i want to share is that this is not lost on the justices that are deciding the case. This is not a case that strikes them as a sleeper or just another case of how you deal with awful or some other sanitation problem. He says this. Quote, no questions reaching and pervading in the consequence, so profoundly interesting to the people of the country and so important on their bearing on the United States and at the several states to each other into the citizens of the states of the United States have been before this court during the official life of any of its members. Hes starting out by saying that this is the single most important case. A question now. My question is directed to professor ross. Who is attributed to the well educated african incredible community, and also to the education of oscar . What had happened in new orleans was a few Public Schools, but they were educated by catholic private schools, some even send them to school in paris, but that was all done with a francophone perspective. I want to get something into the collar, because things get solved overtime because it is an efficient place. In new orleans, if someone in power does not act, nothing gets done. If a legislature did not act, there would still be butchers putting in the river. Tim is watching in greenville, illinois, in your up next. Go ahead. Yes. My question is, didnt the north have enough, then they have enough butchers, or what was the reason for the butchers in the north to go down through arkansas . That was money to be made, yes. Not everyone involved in the slow their house was in northern, are somewhere. Paul, did you want to Say Something . What they were, the folks from the north where investors, there are people of capital. There wasnt any capital in the south after the civil war, the banks were destroyed, the economy was in ruins, and in order to get anything done, you have to bring the capital. They get done because they bring a capitalist from delaware who promises to reconstruct all the railroads. But you need outside money. The ex confederates will portray this, and these are all councils down there to get elected on the votes of ignorance, and then use their positions to rip off the south for their own benefit. If you read the actions of carpetbaggers, they have an evangelical sense that they were doing got working coming down to show the south how its done, to take what they saw as a backward place stunted by slavery in philip with factories in Public Schools and railroads and recreate the south and the north image, a classic reconstruction story. The United States has tried to do that before. For doing that, they are called carpetbaggers and cnet scoundrels. This is a gilded age, and corruption is everywhere, but theres many of them who think they are doing something important and resent the notions that they are just there to get rich. Our next question as we talk about the slaughterhouse cases in the Supreme Court, one of our landmark series, joseph in wisconsin, youre on the air. What happened to judge campbell . Well, youre getting ahead of our story, well tell you and if you continue to watch what happened to judge campbell. Thanks for the question. Let me introduce Doug Campbell to nemesis, and that is serving on the Supreme Court. And he is one of the most distinguished members of the court, as weve established, and also is important because he was assigned to write the majority opinion in the case. Well learn more about his background in our next exclusive video. Semi miller moved here about 1850, and he built this health for about 13,000 dollars as a wedding present for his wife. Sam miller left kentucky because he did not believe in slavery. Kentucky was a slave state, and iowas not. And 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. Mueller did not like that. So he came here with his family and freed his slaves. He actually had some of them working for him, in which he paid them. And the Historical Society believes this wouldve been the dining room where Samuel Freeman miller would have entertained many guests. Political guests, lawyers, other judges. Miller took a great interest in state politics. His views helped shaped the republican party. Here is a copy of an article from the delegate city newspaper, stating that he went to the republican state convention, they were electing officers and he was representing the first district. Sam miller had a very Successful Law Firm here he attracted national attention, and after 12 years of living here, he was appointed the u. S. Supreme Court Justice by abraham lincoln. He was also the very first appointed justice the side of the mississippi river. My across . Whats important to know about his background and the temperament that he brought to the court . This is a man who married into a slave owning family, owned slaves and becomes a doctor, and wrote his medical School Dissertation on cholera and its treatment. He was one of the first to recognize that it had a connection with water borne because cholera had affected the river, he needs being a doctor because all this patients died. And he moves and could follow suit cassius clay, the emancipation as leader. When they saddle slavery, they say its time to get out. He moves to the city, and thinks is going to be the next chicago, everyone does and becomes one of the founders of the republican party. Throughout his career hes going to be a moderate republican, not a radical republican, that is going to affect the slaughterhouse decision, but a staunch supporter of lincoln and eventually a strong support of reconstruction, and again hes someone that doesnt like lawyers puffing up a case of lots of ancient president s. And campbells argument in slaughterhouses is eventually the kind of thing that he does not like, going back to the battles between parliament and the king. We all know why these amendments were passed. We know what the 14th amendment was passed, to protect the freedom in. And it was not to protect white butchers in new orleans from i needed health regulation, and that is what he thinks is the first justice from western mississippi, what we will call practical midwestern thinking. He prides himself on. And that is part of the case, his dismissing all what he sees as puffery. Can you tell us about the state of the Supreme Court, and when this case was heard . Where did they meet . They met in the old Supreme Court chamber in the senate. So this is long before they have their own marble palace across the street, so the circumstances of this are a lot more modest than that. But at this point the Supreme Court arguments are often very well intended, and also multi day affairs. So in this day in age, typically the most important Supreme Court argument is still going to get 30 minutes inside, and when the slaughterhouse cases are good for the second time, it is a threeday affair. So february 3rd, fourth and fifth of 1873, this is something where theupc, justices allowed the lawyers a lot of airtime. Lawyers might refer to it today to make their cases. And campbell, is not only relying on the 13th in the 14th amendment and this audacious, way but he is drawing the court back to long established british precedents. Its a little hard to understand why this complaint about the butchers losing their ability to practice their trade, and the company being this monopoly is not only a plausible claim, but it goes back to this british common wall cases. Theres a famous british case that involves the crown giving somebody in britain, i think it was drc, read about it jane austin novel. Dorothy is given a monopoly on playing cards in england. The only person that can do this. And its a celebrated legal case, its a monopoly that is unlawful and a variation of the common law. Essentially, the argument campbell is crafting, hes running right into millers prejudices because hes relying on all of these old cases, but making the argument that the common law made clear that you could not have these kind of monopolies. And the privileges or immunities clause of the constitution. It must incorporate the idea that i have a privileged practice in my trade, and the government cannot give that privilege exclusively to someone else, just like with dorsey and the playing cards. The questions before the court, the legal questions, and we have to explain that the great irony of this is the amendment was one of three written to address the civil rights of black citizens in the United States after dred scott and the civil war, but it was a case with white voters that came to the Supreme Court that was the first challenge of the 14th amendment. Here are the questions before the court in this case. First of all does the Louisiana Court law rather create involuntary servitude, does it deny equal protection of the law . Does it deprive individuals of their property without due process . Again, the language of the 14th amendment and finally does the law violate the 14th amendments privileges and immunities clauses . Those are the questions the court was asked. We heard that John Campbell argued the case on behalf of the butchers, this is the slaughterhouse cases because there are a number of them all in one. Who is arguing on the other side . One of the lead attorneys is an interesting guy named thomas durant, he was once a slave owner but he becomes influenced by utopian socialism. And they have all type of exotic views. You can google it. What it happened is he was in new orleans and had become a radical republican in favor of black rights. But he is there by a time of the 1866 riot where the moment of the African American community are surrounded by the police force before they had the reconstruction which is made of the many of henri hazes brigade. They break into the halls and start killing everyone insight. Durant fleece and gets Death Threats for his life, moves to d. C. And becomes a lawyer who argues in front of the Supreme Court. He is one of the key lawyers arguing on behalf of the, back it is off behalf of the Crescent City livestock company. And there was also lawyers, because there are two defendants in the case . There are two lawyers jeremy a black, and matthew carpenter. Matthew carpenter was knee deep in the ratification debates. And the 14th amendment. He is someone who knows the 14th amendment. If you wanted somebody who knows the original intent, carpenter wouldve been there as the sausages being made. Next call, richard you are on with our two guests as we talk with the slaughterhouse cases. My question is for either one of the scholars, or both, my question is is the plant in any way involved during this case . In louisiana it wouldnt be the clue clocks clan, there was the nights of the white emilia, that normally there are lots of Paramilitary Group knowing is the louisiana legion, the way that they are involved in this case is that this is a full front assault on reconstruction launched by the Democratic Party completely, launched by the lightweights of the white camellia, where there is violence in the killing republican officials and they are killing the friedman and their political leaders. But then there is campbell who doesnt pick up a gun but picks up his legal briefs and it is campbell in a number of other lawyers and they go to court. Combined it is a full blown rule or ruined massive resistance to reconstruction. You said that the case had to be argued twice . Why is that . How does that happen . The first time it is argued, one of the justices is effectively indisposed so you have nine justices but one of them is unavailable. So the court is not in a position to decide this case. They understand, as i read before, they will have this understanding that this was a momentous decision. They only have one chance to have the first chance interpret the 14th amendment. So they need to get a full court in order to decide this case. They slated for reargument. They have this remarkable argument. When you think about the four issues that are before the court, it is really the heart of the reconstruction have been meant. The 13th of edmund and then you have the three principle provisions in section one of the 14th amendment. Due process clause, equal protection clause, and the privileges and immunities cause. Certainly to lawyers present day, if you think of a slaughterhouse case as a great case about the privileges and immunities clause and the way they decided it. The last case functionally about the privileges and unity is clause. Campbell had at all my table. He didnt leave anything to chance. He had a due process clause and the equal protection clause also available. It is one of the interesting products of history that Justice Miller and his decision focuses on the privileges and immunities cause. It says that the other two have not been to pressed before the court. It says very little about those clauses. Part of the legacy of the slaughterhouse case is that it is not just important for what it is decided for the cause it is more important for the impetus it gave for subsequent justices to breathe even greater life into the due process clause and the equal protection clause then the framers of the 14th in a minute may have intended. What is your question for us . Equal protection is based in large part on classification of people, be it race or something else, is the only argument is that the classification is based on being butchers . I think they are equal protection argument was principally based on the fact of the opportunity to be a butcher should have been open to all. So it was a classification in a sense, there are certain people that were in answering people our out and in that sense they have a classic nonsense that class for lawyers called equal protection clause argument. That was coupled with a due process argument that was really again, what current royals would call a subsequent argument. They were not arguing that somehow you could have an exclusive monopoly across butchers, if only gave better notice an additional hearing. They were saying that this was not the kind of statute that the state could pass at all. It violated a broader concept of due process, something that i think viewers should stay tuned for. That becomes something that is adopted by a majority of the court for a period of the history of the court. All these arguments are made. Ultimately, campbell focuses and Justice Miller focuses on the justice and amenities cause. We had something you wanted to add . I always thought that perhaps the butchers were also arguing that they were being allowed to use their property as other people were because they had been slaughtering in uptown new orleans and suddenly they have to go somewhere else. With that fit the model that youre disgusting . That would certainly be consistent with the model, but i think the critical thing and this feeds into Justice Millers understanding of the equal protection clause at the time that he is running the slaughterhouse case, one thing they were not arguing is that this all law operated anything like the black votes. It wasnt that only African Americans and not whites could get involved in this monopoly butcher trade across the river. It certainly wasnt something that was secured only to whites. Justice miller, and this is not entireli period in american history, the false civil claims act title 18 or 20, came to pass and this ground roles were not just southerners that prayed upon the south and reconstruction period and did a lot of fraudulent things. Did that play into the dilemma that was faced in cultural terms and in terms of the law down there, did any of it can be for the u. S. Supreme court . I am not sure i understand the question. Certainly i think to the extent that question is alluding to the fact that you had not just the idea of the carpetbaggers coming down there, but also efforts to projects federal power to protect everyone but particularly the recently freed slaves from being subject to violence by others down in the south. That is part of this period of history. There is the cruickshank case, hopefully well get to mention in passing that was involved in an application of one of the civil rights statutes. And so those cases also came to the Supreme Court at the same time. If you want to put a slightly broader Historical Context here, the Supreme Court is wrestling with during this period is not just this particular case and what to do with the reconstruction amendment. They are also dealing with the reality that during the civil war there was an opportunity to extend federal power in ways that the union had never seen before. I think that reconstruction was an effort to use, in the absence of a war, a similarity broad scope of the federal power against the states. And what you start to see during this period is a reaction by the court that the pendulum has to swing back to the states. There cant be quite this aggressive assertion of federal power. To give you one statistic to bring this home, in the entire period of constitutional history from the beginning of 1789 and 1869, there were a total of four acts of congress that was struck down as unconstitutional. Yet between 1870 and 1875 there are six acts of Congress Better struck down as unconstitutional. This slaughterhouse case, the cruickshank case, all these could be understood as part of the Supreme Court saying the pendulum has to be swinging back. We cant have this aggressive assertion of federal power. Critics are saying that the Supreme Court just lost their nerve. But i think that both sides in a sense, can point to the facts of what the court was confronting and how they resolve these cases. To tie all of our cases together, if marble and madison hand decided they wouldnt be declaring these actions of congress unconstitutional. Its great that you brought it up, there are aspects of the slaughterhouse case that are a lot elect like marjory. The genius of that decision was that chief Justice Marshall wrote a special decision, if you come out the other way it is not entirely clear if the decision wouldve been enforced. And if he really wouldve picked a major fight. Theres a similar sense here was slaughterhouse cases. If Justice Miller flips his vote and theyre five oats the other way and they start saying, all sorts of common law privileges are enforced by the 14th amendment against the states, then that sets up the federal Supreme Court as reviewing all sorts of state laws without any text in the constitution to strike them down. No one will know what would have happened if the Court Decides the slaughterhouse case the other way. But it wouldve been a very aggressive assertion of judicial authority. Miller says that. He says, this will make the Supreme Court and the perpetual sensor of the states and chomping at the bit for that to happen is steven j field. He loves that idea. He loves the idea of a court that can use natural law principles to overturn in particular, regulatory legislation. You read it in his dissent. A lot of this is what is now we see what is coming here. It is coming from campbell we know it is something nefarious and they see fields dissent and they say this is a pandoras box that we are not going to open. Stephen field justice was another lincoln appointee. Yes but a democrat who is opposed to reconstruction and angling for the president ial nomination. But also someone who has really throughout his jurisprudence often unnatural law advocate. Greg is in washington, high grape. Good evening, thank you. This is very interesting program. I was wondering, we had somebody on talking about the u. S. Supreme court, looking at foreign rulings since louisiana follow said napoleon echoed i was wondering if that was all implicated in this decision. And how to federal courts in general deal with the nook poetic code versus mostly british common law . Thank you. Can you interpret that for the rest of us who are not lawyers . Sure. One of the great things about having louisiana in the union is not only that it gives us a chance to go to new orleans without a passport but it also means that we have one of the 50 states that is really operating under a different rule of law. Its base rule of law is different than the other 49 states. The other states are based on the common law and there are two great traditions in the law, theres common law that traces to england and then there are the civil code base law that are the ones in the most of Continental Europe entries to france and the napoleon it coats. And wouldnt you know it . Louisiana is a code state and traces its legal tradition to a completely different tradition. That may have made a difference. But by the time we get to the Supreme Court, that is really not going to come into play. What comes into play, if you look at the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion, is something that continues to be one of the major themes of judicial review today, which is how much do you look into what the framers of the 14th amendment were trying to do and what was their intent and how much do look at the plain language of what they passed . That is the debate here. What campbell and his argument and the dissenters are saying is look, these words due process, equal protection, they dont say anything about recently freed slaves. They seem like they are applicable to all and they empowers to do that. Miller on the other hand is looking at all of this and saying, this is not ancient history. These were past five years ago. I was around then. I know what these were about and i know these were about protecting African Americans. They were not about protecting white butchers in new orleans. We heard it was a five four decision, heres a little bit, a paragraph that we picked out of his majority opinion. It is quite clear than that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. We only have 15 minutes left, and then we have to get on to the next part of our story. Let me ask you, what happened to the butchers who lost the case . What was their history . Even the unanimity is breaking down during the case. At one point the butchers Benevolent Association cuts a deal with a Crescent City livestock where they merge and move to a new slaughterhouse that they are building below the city. And some other butchers are like, we didnt agree to move from slaughter monopoly to another one. That is why it is reaching the Supreme Court. After the case, the battles over slaughterhouses and where they are and where the slaughtering should be go on and on. Even after reconstruction collapses and we are back into a legislator controlled by white democrats. The slaughterhouse situation continues to be a deeply contested one. Robert in new jersey you are on. I have two questions. The first one concerns how in the 14th amendment was originally which britain, the privileges was seen as protecting, will the equal protection was more procedural. The question has to do with why was equal protection clause seen as for procedural rights . And my second question has to do with how the Supreme Court since the slaughterhouse cases has ruled in protecting rights under the immunities clause . And only 1999 has that one remained on the books. My question, can our two guests here perceive any legal issues that could be guaranteed under the 14th immunity clause . That is a semesters worth of answers. I will let paul answer this. There are a couple of points to be made. One is that the privileges and immunities clause was principally designed to protect subsequent rights. The due process clause was certainly going to be interpreted with consistently with the due process clause of the fifth amendment. It was probably envisioned as protecting procedural rights. The equal protection clause was clearly envisioned in classifications and deferential treatment. Exactly which ones is something we are still finding about today. I think what Justice Miller does, and it is very close to the passage that was just read. He says, you are misunderstanding this campbell and dissenters. This is not about privileges or immunities broadly understood, if you want to be protected against those or those protected you have to look to your State Governments. The only thing that the privileges and immunities clause protects is privileges that are uniquely privileges of u. S. Citizenship, National Citizenship. Miller does his best. He knows what hes doing. He knows that hes interpreting that clause down to nearly nothing this. He actually has a passage of his opinion where he is a bit shamed about this, he says there are some privileges and immunities of National Citizenship but typically they are things that are already protected by provisions of the bill of rights. You have the national privilege to go into congress and to have your grievances heard. And that is the right to petition. It is really difficult to identify things that he has preserved. Thats why most legal scholars when they look at this decision, and its something that the centers were saying, you just read the privileges and immunities clause out of the constitution. Since this decision, since the miller arguments essentially silenced the 14th amendment and the privileges and immunities clause, there are signs today that the High Court May be ready to reinvigorate the clause. Heres a clip of John Paul Stephens on that clause and his sends vitro decision for the court. And then we will wrap up or discussion. The right of a newlyarrived is plainly identified in the 14th amendment. Of greater importance, the 14th amendment citizenship clause expressly equate citizenship with residents, and does not tolerate a hierarchy of subclasses of other citizens. Based on the location on the prior residents. Let Congress Pass a statue this court has consistently held that congress has not authorized states to violate the 14th amendment. Citizens of the u. S. Whether rich or poor have the right to choose if the citizens and where they reside. And that was John Paul Stephens on the privileges and immunities clause. When we talk about the legal legacy, here are some other core cases that cited the slaughterhouse case. U. S. Versus cruickshank, plus seahorses ferguson, brown versus the board of education and a case that paul knows well, he argued that case before the course. What do we know about the legacy, the long tale of this . Do you want to Start Talking about its importance . I think paul is perfectly situated to answer that question because in mcdonald there are people advocating slaughterhouse be overturned. The court had an opportunity to do that. Im happy to kick it off and turn it over to you. That is an impressive list. But in some ways it is the dog that didnt bark. Many scholars believes it is the privileges and immunities clause that is designed by the framers of that provision to incorporate all of the bill of rights against the State Governments. Your First Amendment to free speech, which the Supreme Court didnt get it round to protecting against State Government actions until decades later, that was designed to be extended to State Governments by the privileges and immunities clause. That is the argument that many people have made. Instead of having a citation of only a handful of cases, if the court had gone not wrote, there would be literally hundreds of cases, 20 or 30 cases every year, where the court would be applying that clause of the 14th amendment. Had not what ultimately happened which is the same provisions were incorporated against the states, but they were done through the due process clause which a lot of historians and legal scholars say, it isnt faithful to the regional interpretation. Just to give you one illustration of why that might make a difference is that one of the difference that is different about this clause from the equal protection clause and due process clause, the privileges and immunities clause is a protection to citizens, the other to protect people. Since the First Amendment has been incorporated against gay State Governments, then the people that are protected against that have long been interpreted to include corporations. Citizens on the other hand was interpreted by the Supreme Court a long time ago, not to include corporations. These distinctions that legal scholars debate could actually have real world consequences as to whether the First Amendment applies not just to individual speech but to corporate speech. One that is being regulated by the state. We would be remiss in are closing if we didnt mention that there is some evidence that some of the radical republicans who helped frame the 14th amendment said some things that suggest for the privileges and immunities clause to include the bill rates. At the same time, there is lots of evidence out there as well that not everyone who voted for the 14th amendment or the ratification in the states, wanted it to be like that. Had the framers wanted that to be the case, they couldve just change the wording of the 14th amendment, and said the first eight amendments that apply to the Central Government now apply to the states. And it would be salt. Instead some of them say things about amendments being protected, some dont. And law reviews thousands and thousands of pages of people person with the framers of the 14th amendment intended. There would be a lot fewer law professors had they made the amendment more clearly. I wanted to make sure that everyone out there watching, who had written articles on this topic knows that we take that to pay very seriously. Quick question from roger. I read mr. Ross is book, and Justice Miller was a pretty mediocre character, he himself said he was appointed to be a reliable republican and that he was. And we have had justices that were appointed that were not legal geniuses, are we making a mistake in judging the Supreme Court justices of today as if they were all legal geniuses or should we take a look as maybe just the result of a political process . I will let paul answer that. But i disagree on Justice Miller. He was very intelligent but he was a political justice. Let me say this, there is a lot that can be say about the slaughterhouse cases. I hope we have conveyed some sense of how important these cases are jurors potentially. With the 14th amendment, you really have a fundamental shift where the constitution is now protecting individuals again State Governments and not just federal governments. It takes a while because of the slaughterhouse case to have the full promise of the 14th amendment. But it is a central case, a lot can be said about the decision pro or con. One thing that couldnt be said about the decision at the time, that it was just a product of politics. It was a five four decision, three republican appointees on both sides. And so i think that actually cautions against interpreting Supreme Court justices old and new as just sort of political actors or people who are appointed for a particular purpose and are not distinguish scholars. I make my living arguing in front of the justices and i feel like the Current Group are real scholars and really looking to decide the legal issues of the cases. I will let the professor gave a full rebuttal to defend Justice Miller, but it is a scholarly and well written rip in, it has been criticized bitterly by scholars but i also think it is a decision that really apply the traditional tools, at least looking at the intent behind legislator. That is a debate we are still having this day. Justice miller had aspirations for chief justice and was hopeful for the presidency. You write that he was long considered by historians as one of the key figures in the rivaling of reconstruction. Because the slaughterhouse cases does not apply the bill of rights against the states when reconstruction collapses and White Supremacy is restored, African Americans could have they couldve far jim crow legislation. When that doesnt happen it is because of the slaughter house cases. It is the need to protect African American rights, you know that is not what was intended. We had a caller who had asked us whatever happened to John Campbell . He suffers a serious accident in new orleans that makes it very hard to travel but he wants to continue arguing front of the courts removes to baltimore. There he continues to continue his Legal Practice and after arguing a few more cases that are anti reconstruction, he passes. We have a caller on twitter who ask us where to purchase the book for landmark cases. We have a small book that is we are selling at cost and it is available on our website, if you get a cease ban dot or we will get it to you very quickly. He did the summary of each of the 12 cases and it will help if youre going to follow along with us if you want to read about the background as we proceed through our series. We are just about out of time. As we close, quick summary of why someone should care about this landmark case. For the same reason they should care about reconstruction, one of the areas that americans have a blank spot in the historical memory. It is the area that really defines the meaning of the civil war. The slaughterhouse cases were part about defining the meaning of the civil war. And you would say . I counted six of the cases that are left in the series that have major constitutional cases that involved not action by the federal government by the State Government. The reason those are constitutional questions, the reason why the State Government does something to you that you dont like that you can take it all the way to the u. S. Supreme court is the 14th amendment and its the very fact that cruickshank is the first case to interpret that amendment that makes it such a landmark case. Thanks to both of you for adding your scholarship, and thanks to our viewers for having being involved in cspans landmark case. Well see you next week. All persons having business before the supreme course of the United States are admonished to get their