Replies

Technically, you are correct that the original Constitution did not give blacks (then slaves protections.

But, post-Civil War, there was an amendment to the Constitution specifically designed to protect blacks and a political US Supreme Court twisted the interpretation of the amendment in such a way as to unduly limit its protections to federal, and not individual state, actions.

Basically, the then-bigots of the US Supreme Courts took away the protections Congresss, the President, and 2/3 of the States gave blacks.

I believe this was the "Dred Scott" case, but I am no lawyer.

Basically, the then-bigots of the US Supreme Courts took away the protections Congresss, the President, and 2/3 of the States gave blacks.

I believe this was the "Dred Scott" case, but I am no lawyer.

It was Plessey v Ferguson decided by the SC over 30 years after the Civil War that legitimized the Jim Crow laws on the books in the South.

Dred Scott was issued in 1857, and it denied any rights to blacks (slave or free) as citizens. Scott became moot with the passage of the 13th and 14th immediately following the Civil War.

Like Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court completely ignored the letter and the intent of the Constitution in deciding both Scott and Ferguson and instead acted as legislatures to "settle" a major social issue of the day. The lesson is that bad things happen when courts overstep their authority and usurp the legislative process necessary in a Democracy.

"But, post-Civil War, there was an amendment to the Constitution specifically designed to protect blacks and a political US Supreme Court twisted the interpretation of the amendment in such a way as to unduly limit its protections to federal, and not individual state, actions."

Those were The Slaughterhouse Cases (1875 IIRC), which said that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment (the clause that was most controversial when the 14th Amendment was approved by Congress because it prevented states from denying to any person, including blacks, the protections afforded by the individual-right provisions of the Bill of Rights (basically everything in Amendments 1-8 except for the Establishment Clause) and the "privileges and immunities of citizenship" enumerated by Judge Bushrod Washington in a prominent 19th Century case) did not actually stand for anything, since it protected "federal privileges and immunities" (of which there were none of importance), not "state privileges and immunities" (which were actually the ones that Congress intended to protect for all Americans).

The Supreme Court eventually incorporated some of the Bill of Rights against the states through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, but it has never returned the Privileges or Immunities Clause to the prominence it deserves nor incorporated the individual rights that should be incorporated (and, by incorporating the Establishment Clause against the states, turned the clause on its head).