If you ask historians about the courts of the pre-Civil War South many of them will tell you about how State vs Mann and State vs. Will are two of the most significant court cases to develop from that time period. Ruffin’s name will forever be associated with the Mann case as will Gaston’s name be associated with State vs. Will. The two judges never seem to fully agree on the way that they view things, however they never seem to fully disagree either. The two judges seem to inject their own personal biases into their rulings and that can completely effect how one might view the judge’s rulings to be accurate. In that sense, the Honorable Thomas Ruffin is the judge who has the most reasonable and thought out rulings because he thinks about the …show more content…
Mann. In this case Ruffin asserted the idea of chattel slaves, meaning that slaves are strictly property of the owner. In State vs. Mann, John Mann rented a slave named Lyndia. At some point Mann decided to punish Lyndia with a whipping. Lyndia, in the midst of this punishment, started to run away. Man shot and wounded her as she ran away and was charged with assault and battery in the lower court. Judge Ruffin overturned this ruling in the North Carolina Supreme Court. He ruled that the master has full control over his slave and has the right to punish the slave in which he seems fit in order to create an obedient slave. This ruling would set the tone for many court cases to …show more content…
Mann and his thought process as a judge triumph over Judge Gaston’s. Judge Ruffin believes that “dominion is essential,” and he sticks by this in his rulings. He openly admits that his opinion is harsher than most judges but says he is only crying “crocodile tears,” meaning he has superficial sympathy for the slaves he ruled against because he is looking out for the greater good of his people and protecting them from an uprising. Judge Ruffin believes that you need to keep the slaves in line in order to maintain the balance between Master and slave, and for the time period in which he was ruling, this only seems like the logical thing to do especially because of the growing fear of rebellious slaves. This is also why State vs. Mann is the most significant case to come out of the court room in the pre-Civil War South. State vs. Mann’s ruling properly defined the relationship between Master and slave. It defined the power and balance. It set the tone for all Master’s on how they can rule over what is rightfully their property. State vs. Mann and Ruffin’s ruling is the most compelling case that has emerged from the courts of pre-Civil War
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Slaves were regarded as “human chattel”, to be used for whatever purpose their owners might wish (McLaurin 117). It is evident in Celia’s trial, that conflicts concerning arguments of masters to their slaves, the verdict typically favored the master. Celia later became involved with a fellow slave by the name of George. Celia’s new lover could not bear the thought of his master taking advantage of Celia. George, however, held no legal position to inform Newsome of what he may or may not do. George advised Celia to terminate her relations with Newsome; consequently, if she failed to do so, George would put an end to his own companionship with her. The result of Celia’s confrontation with her master resulted in his death. The only successful form of resistance she ever obtained. Unfortunately, Celia’s life was executed two months later. By her story, a conclusion is drawn that although blacks had rights, they remained inferior to those of white males. Anything the superior head of the house desired from their chattel was received. Infamous treatment of slaves, such that as Celia’s, remained in the favor of white males. Any crime committed upon the whites by blacks, regardless of motives, predominantly went in the whites’ favor. Concluding the fact that slaves were hardly in any form of position to resist their
In Celia, A Slave, a slave named Celia was sent to court because she committed homicide. However, the murder was justified, because she was trying to defend herself from her slave owner, Robert Newsom, who was attempting to rape her once again. This time around, Celia attempted to protect herself by striking Newsom, just in order to daze him for a bit. She did not intend to kill the man, but simply keep him away from her. Unfortunately, in Missouri in 1850, the only person that would be protected by law would be the slave owner, when it came to the rape of a slave. The slave owner would be allowed to immediately punish a rapist for trespassing on their property, which in this case, would be the slave. Celia, A Slave is a story that
Charles Martin reviews a controversial court case of the 1930s in regards to the legal system of the South. Originally, Martin wrote the Angelo Herndon Case and Southern Justice as a doctoral dissertation; however, he continued his writings and research to publish his writings into a book. Published by Louisiana State University Press in 1976, The Angelo Herndon Case and Southern Justice depicts the dynamics of the South as the Communists influence increased creating a basis for biracial coalition, which opposes the racial interaction in the South. With use of primary sources and great detail, Martin accurately portrays the inequality within the justice system of Southern state for African Americans and the fear of Communism by reviewing the
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
In conclusion, the court systems then and now have changed drastically. There are no bias judges, the court is fair and completely lawful and professional. There is a certain criteria that is to be made by the system. There are many flaws people have towards the court, but they try to keep the country free of drugs and unlawful people. The Crucible was a great example of this, the way the system was during the Witch Trials caused many uproars because of the treatment to other people. Due to the unlawful ways of the Salem Witch Trials, the justice system today is for the
Robinson trial; (2) prejustice and its effects on the processes of the law and society; (3)
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Although the law states “any woman”, this statute did not apply to female slaves. Slave women were not protected in cases of rape, and in some situations it was not only the master of the slaves but other male slaves who sexually assaulted their female counterparts. Whether the assailant is white or black, women could rarely legally defend themselves. In the majority of states which enacted slavery laws, slaves themselves were referred to as property. Celia was no longer seen as a human being, but rather as a piece of property, and Newsom saw her as nothing more than a
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Fairness-I remember when Mr. Tate came to my door telling me that Tom was coming into the county jail. He was warning me that Tom might get lynched. Mr. Link Deas was saying. “You’ve got everything to lose from this, Atticus. I mean everything.” I then proceeded to tell him. “Link, that boy might go to the chair, but he’s not going till the truth’s told.” I believed that as a citizen of Alabama he had a right to a fair trial. That is why I took my job so seriously, because he may have had a biased jury, but at least he had an attorney that did his
The captivity of slaves as one’s property was orginally enforced by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, although it still did not address those who might assist a slave’s escape. Titled “An Act respecting the fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters”, this law officially permitted the recapture of slaves who escaped to northern free states. Therefore, former slaves were at risk of recapture for all their lives. Moreover, children of escaped slave mothers were made lifelong property of the mother’s master. Numerous northern states authorized enactment to secure free dark Americans - who could somehow or another be kidnapped, then conveyed under the steady gaze of court without the capacity to create a protection, and in this manner legitimately oppressed - and also runaway slaves. These laws came to be known as "personal liberty laws" and required slave proprietors and outlaw seekers to deliver confirm that their catches were genuinely criminal slaves, "similarly as southern states requested the privilege to recover runaway slaves, northern states requested the privilege to shield their free dark occupants from being abducted and sold into subjugation in the South.” A controversial example may be the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Edward Prigg was a citizen of Maryland and had been arraigned by a Pennsylvania court for trying to capture a black woman in York County to send her to Maryland as a fugitive slave. He was attempted and indicted by a local court in Pennsylvania, yet the case was finally appealed to the Supreme Court.
“What makes us trust our judges? Their independence in office and their manner of appointment.” As John Marshall states, the judges of the Supreme Court should be independent and appointed in an honest manner. This is an interesting statement, as Marshall himself was a “midnight judge,” and therefore considered by Democratic-Republicans as a corrupt appointment. Even though Thomas Jefferson and his followers believed that, it didn’t stop Marshall. His influence in the court left a legacy that would form the basis of the Supreme Court for decades to come. By strengthening the federal government, limiting state powers, and keeping Federalist ideals alive during the Revolution of 1800, John Marshall’s significance to the Supreme Court is still