History That Will Forever Be Profound and Bitter

The histories of civil rights in the United States are events in history that will forever be profound and bitter-sweet moments. In the case of Prigg v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania explains during the year of 1832 a black woman by the name Margaret Morgan moved to Pennsylvania from Maryland. She was once a slave to John Ashmore. She lived in freedom but was not completely emancipated. The heirs of Ashmore decided to claim her as a slave and therefore hired slave catcher Edward Prigg. The question or issue of this case is: Did Pennsylvania laws prohibit the extradition of Negroes to other states for the sole purpose of slavery? Did they violate the fugitive slave law of +1793 applied by the Supremacy Caluse? The response is yes to both questions because Justice Story argued that the 1782 and 1826 laws contradicted Article IV, section 2 of the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave law. The reason behind this reasoning was that state laws put in place by slave states to recapture slaves in Free states only to be forced by federal officials, not magistrates in other states. In the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, we have sort of the same situation at hand. Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri from 1835 to 1843 and he resided in Illinois, a Free State, and in Louisiana territory where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. When he returned to Missouri he unsuccessfully sued the courts of Missouri for his freedom claiming that the territory in which he lived made him a free man. He took it to the Federal Courts and his master stated that no Negro of African descent and of slaves could be a citizen in the mist of Article III of the Constitution. The question of relevance is whether Dred Scott is free or not? The conclusion was that he was considered a slave and under Aritcles III and IV, Taney argued that no one could be a citizen of the United States or of a state unless Congress granted citizenship. The court upheld the Missouri Compromise un-constitutional with the hopes of ending slavery. In the wake up of the Slaughter House Cases which took place in Louisiana main significance was the monopoly that was created. The slaughtering of animals was the cash crop of that territory and most competitors argued that involuntary solitude, abridged privileges and immunities, denied equal protection of the laws, and deprived them of liberty and property without due process of law. The question is whether or not the monopoly violated the 13th and 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The conclusion was that it did not violate those two amendments. Involuntary servitude does not forbid limit on rights of ones property. Also the equal protection claim was struck down since it was created to void laws discriminating against blacks.