Theodore Parker

 

Theodore Parker's Speech at the Faneuil Hall Meeting (May 26, 1854)

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/aboltheopark.html

 

As an abolitionist, Theodore Parker beleived that the issue of slavery in the US was a great problem. He beleived that the law that was passed, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (following the Compromise of 1850), was controversial to the Compromise. He did not beleive it was fair that slaves that reached the Northern states had to be returned to their slave owners in the South. He was against slavery and he openly advocated for the people to the violate this law. An example of him sharing his ideas against slavery is in May 26, 1854 at Faneuil Hall. There, Parker gave his speech that the Fugitive Slave Law was unfair and they should stand against it. He planned to not allow a slave, that had been recently recaptured, be taken back to the South with his owner.

According to Parker, the great issue in the US was the issue of slavery. Parker beleived that the current government had issues and that over time it would be fixed so that justice would be met and slavery would end. Legislation can control human behavior but not change it because humans will still act as they wish but legislation puts a borderline to what extent the people could act as they wish. Parker beleived in immediate changes because he planned to take action at the Faneuil Hall Meeting when he planned to not let the slave leave.

Parker showed that society can be improved by involvement because he took action against what he did not agree with. He spoke against the capture of the slave in his speech at Faneuil Hall. He also hid slaves from the Fugitive Slave Law. Parker was directly involved in getting rid of slavery so he obviously beleived in the active involvement to make a better society. He beleives a society with no slavery would be a good society. He followed what he beleived was a good society and fought to get rid of slvery.



Cohens vs Virginia (1821)

          The United States Congress authorized the sellng of lottery tickets in the District of Columbia. The Cohen brothers began to sell lottery tickets in Virginia which violated the state law. The state authorities fined them $100. State courts beleived that Virginia's law prohibiting lotteries could be enforced although congress authorized the selling of lottery tickets. The Cohens appealed to the Supreme Court that their conduct was protected by the Act that Congress had authorize. In the end, the Cohens brothers' charges were upheld because Congress only allowed for the tickets to be sold in the District of Columbia. This case mostly signified that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in all cases brought to the Supreme Court.

          The main issue in the case was the question of whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal in a criminal case. Virginia argued that the Constitution did not give the Supreme Court jurisdiction over criminal judgments by the state courts. Virginia also argued that its decision was final and unreviewable by the Supreme Court. They belived that even though the law involved an act of Congress, Virginia had an unreviewable right apply or not apply a federal law as it liked. The Supreme Court used Article III, Section 2 (Supremacy Clause) of the Constitution to prove that they had jurisdiction in this criminal case. This article states, "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." This meant that with the Constitution, the Constitution grants Supreme Court jurisdiction for all cases.
          This case strengthened the Supreme Court's jurisdiction as it was determined that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in every case. This could have been determined in a later on case brought to the Supreme Court because this idea of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction had been established in the Fletcher vs Peck case in 1810. The Supreme Court could have ruled that the Cohens brothers were clear of charges but the act passed by Congress was directly applied to and only the District of Columbia so Virginia's law was still intact for no lottery tickets being sold.

Fletcher vs Peck (1810)

         Georgia took control of a 35-million-acre region  know as the Yazoo lands (present day Alabama and Mississippi). These lands were the Indian Reserve that werewest of Geogia. In 1795, Georgia legislature (old legislature) divided the area into four parts. The government allowed each piece of land to be sold to four different land development companies for about 1.4 cents per acre. The Georgia legislature approved and was called the Yazoo Land Act of 1795. The Yazoo Land Act actually passed because bribes had taken place and so in the next election voters rejected most of the legislature. The next legislature that came into office (new legislature)not only repealed the law but voided any transactions made; they did this because of the public outcry. John Peck purchased land under the act but soon sold this land to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher brought this suit against Peck in 1803, saying that Peck did not have a clear owner title of the land. This was a lose-lose situation because if Supreme Court had ruled for Peck not to have true title over the land, then Fletcher would lose the land as well.
          In a six to one decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the state legislature could not repeal the law because it was considered unconstitutional. This was based of Article I, Section 10, Clause I, also called the Contract Clause, of the Constitution. It said that the Act cannot be invalidated even if the land was illegally obtained. This decision helped create a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts. During this case, the Native Americans did not hold title to any of the lands in the Indian Reserve.
          In this case, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the state repealment of the Yazoo Land Act was costitutional or not. This was the first law that the Supreme Court asserted their power to prove a state law unconstitutional. This case also asserted that the Indians had no claim of the lands that they had been living on before Georgia just claimed it as their own. This case was the beginning of where the Supreme Court would decide whether or not any state law is/was constitutional or not.