Custom Search

Forex News Update

Live Forex News and Analysis Review Update



Subscribe to this Feed by Email Subscribe to this Feed by Email

Subscribe to this Feed by Email Subscribe to this Feed by Email

Subscribe to this Feed by Email Subscribe to this Feed by Email
Subscribe to InstaForex Company News by Email
Showing posts with label civil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil. Show all posts

October 7, 2011

The Road to Civil War: The Dred Scott Decision

On March 6th 1857, African-Americans were delivered a conclusive and seemingly fatal blow to their prospects for freedom. It was official. The United States Supreme Court -- the highest bastion of law and morality -- ruled that 'Negroes' were not people. They were property. And this was their truth wherever they stood on American soil.

Eleven years earlier, Dred Scott -- an illiterate slave -- had sued for his liberty in a Missouri court, holding that he had by rights become free after residing for a decade in the free North with his now deceased master before being returned to the slave state of Missouri. So contentious was this case that it eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court for its ruling on three critical issues:

1. Whether Scott was a citizen of Missouri and thus entitled to sue in a federal court.

2. Whether his sojourn in free territory had made him legally a free man.

3. The constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise -- the agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress to regulate slavery in the western territories.

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion of the nine justices -- five of them southerners -- of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. By a majority of seven to two, the Court ruled that -- as a Negro -- Scott was not a citizen Missouri, or indeed the United States, and therefore had no right to bring suit in the federal courts on any matter; Scott had never been free because slaves were personal property; and, furthermore, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had in fact been in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: a person's right to life, liberty and property. Except the rights being violated were not a black person's right to life and liberty. But a white person's right to property, or slaves.

Delivering this crushing verdict, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney did not stop there. In one of the most odious and shocking statements ever in an American Supreme Court decision, the slaveholding chief justice from Maryland declared that blacks were "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery."

In deciding the fate of one man's claim for freedom, the Supreme Court had delivered a verdict on the entire and highly divisive issue of slavery. The Federal government would henceforth have no authority to exclude slavery from any U.S. territory. This broad decision, largely engineered by the recently inaugurated President James Buchanan, gave the South everything it had hoped and long argued for. The North, however, responded in outrage. Northern abolitionists -- utterly astonished that the court had invoked the Bill of Rights to deny a man his freedom -- refused to accept the ruling against African-American citizenship and its denial of congressional authority over the territories. For African-Americans, the devastating verdict was met with hopelessness and, as Frederick Douglass put it, "manifold discouragements." But for the fledgling Republican Party coalition of the North, the decision served to crystallise their purpose. Founded in 1854 to prohibit the spread of slavery, the Republicans now renewed their fight to gain control of Congress. In Illinois, Abraham Lincoln -- a relatively obscure railroad lawyer and one-term Congressman -- was compelled to re-enter politics solely to denounce the decision. Lincoln was far from an abolitionist; he famously held his own contentious views on slavery. But he, like the rest of the Republicans, could not abide the Dred Scott decision. As Civil War historian Professor David Blight explains, "[the decision] destroyed any conception of consensus or compromise... and that's when you see danger in American political history...when the side that loses a debate cannot accept the result."

Dred Scott v. Sandford is more than a landmark case in America's history: it was a catalytic event. We can trace the inevitability of the American Civil War to this very moment. Abraham Lincoln no longer had a choice. John Brown no longer had a choice. With this ruling, six justices decided the fate of America.

The story of the Dred Scott decision is one of many pivotal events in the past that shaped our today. Visit http://www.onthisdeity.com/ to learn about other people and events that have been submerged through the passage of time.


View article source


November 16, 2010

1965 civil rights killing case ends with guilty plea - msnbc.com


MARION, Ala. — A white former state police officer pleaded guilty Monday to a lesser charge in the 1965 shooting death of a black man at a civil rights protest, a killing that inspired historic voting rights marches.

Police search for 3 near where girl rescued Police have blocked off an Ohio park as the search continues for relatives of a 13-year-old girl who was discovered bound and gagged in a nearby house. Full story

GOP rallies new members, preps for tax-cut debate ‘Boobies’ charity wrestles with success Updated 13 minutes ago 11/15/2010 5:25:48 PM +00:00 Ex-trooper pleads guilty in 1965 civil rights killing Mom: Kyron’s stepmom had ‘severe hatred’ for him

James Bonard Fowler, 77, entered the plea of misdemeanor second-degree manslaughter two weeks before he was scheduled to go to trial on a murder charge for the death of Jimmie Lee Jackson. Jackson's shooting in the city of Marion set off protests at nearby Selma that led to passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Fowler was sentenced to six months in jail in Geneva County, his home county.

Fowler was accused of shooting Jackson in a cafe as a protest march turned into a melee in Marion on the night of Feb. 18, 1965. Fowler claimed Jackson was trying to grab the trooper's gun and that he fired in self-defense.

District Attorney Michael Jackson, who in 2005 became the first black prosecutor elected in Marion County, reopened the case and took it before a county grand jury, which indicted Fowler on a murder charge in May 2007. Jimmie Lee Jackson, who died at a Selma hospital days after the shooting, is now honored in civil rights museums in Alabama as a martyr of the movement.

Fowler, who apologized to Jackson's family after entering the plea Monday, said he didn't mean to kill anyone that night in 1965.

"I was coming over here to save lives. I didn't mean to take lives. I wish I could redo it," he said.

Defense attorney George Beck said Fowler agreed to plead guilty to the reduced charge because he was concerned he couldn't get a fair trial in Perry County and his health is poor.

"He wants to put it behind him," he said. "It puts to rest a long chapter of civil rights history here in Perry County."

The district attorney recommended the plea to the family. He said he wanted Fowler to acknowledge what he did, apologize to the family and serve some time behind bars.

"This is almost like a death sentence for him at his age," he said.

But Jackson's daughter, Cordelia Billingsley, said, "This is supposed to be closure, but there will never be closure."

Fowler could have received a maximum sentence of one year. He will be on probation for six months after serving six months in jail.

Shortly after the shooting, federal and state grand juries conducted reviews and brought no charges. The new district attorney, however, reopened it, as have other federal and state prosecutors taking new looks at civil rights era violence in the South in recent years.

The shooting happened after street lights went out during a nighttime civil rights march and violence erupted. Civil rights museums in Alabama say Jackson was shot trying to stop state troopers from beating his grandfather and mother. Fowler maintains he shot in self-defense after Jackson hit him with a drink bottle and tried to grab his gun.

‘Boobies’ charity wrestles with success GPS addict? It may be eroding your brain Jobless and hopeless? Here’s some advice Mom: Stepmom had 'severe hatred' for missing boy Electric car wave offers opening to startups One-on-one with David Axelrod

Jackson's shooting prompted civil rights activists to set out on a Selma-to-Montgomery march, which was turned back at Selma by club-wielding troopers and deputies in what became known as "Bloody Sunday."

A later march, led by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., made it all the way to the Alabama Capitol and led Congress to pass the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which allowed millions of Southern blacks to register to vote.

A federal grand jury in Mobile reviewed the shooting shortly after it occurred and brought no charges.

District Attorney Jackson, who is not related to Jimmy Lee Jackson, has said he learned that Fowler also shot a prisoner to death in 1966 at the city jail in Alabaster and struck his trooper supervisor in 1968.

Alabama Department of Public Safety records show that Fowler was fired on Sept. 30, 1968, but do not indicate the reason.

The Anniston Star first reported on Fowler’s 1968 firing and the 1966 fatal shooting in Alabaster, which Fowler told the newspaper occurred when the man grabbed his billy club and began hitting him.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


View the original article here