You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Law » Civil Rights Cases

Cookie Information

Privacy Information

Free Essays - Law Essays

Civil Rights Cases

Civil Right Act of 1875

Did in fact, the Civil Rights Cases set African Americans back in social societies stature of progressive and digressive cultural prejudice? Government extremists would argue that an answer to such a statement would harm their governments “name”, however, a name can only be “so” bad.

The politics of our present day nation would none the less shun this “barbaric” prejudice, in order to avoid a plunder in his/her fight for power. The question can still remain when poverty stricken neighborhoods are not being assisted and crime is spreading.

Is this an act of the government to implement the past? Undoubtedly, these questions can be answered, but for the sake of a fact based document the response can be saved for an editorial. “Private acts of racial discrimination were simply private wrongs that the national government was powerless to correct“ (oyez.org).

We are going to “dissect” the issue of racial prejudice and apply them to the major aspects of the Civil Rights Cases. In plain sight, the main cause of discrimination in society is the man.

The man has trouble accepting the light that another man, different in all aspects, can do the same job as he. There is a jealousy, a hatred, a “PREJUDICE” against this “thief” who comes to purloin his opportunity at successes in his field. This jealousy, however, is widespread. Not only is one man angry at this sanctioned absurdity, but also are most of the men in town who are that of the same color and religion.

This hatred is now in the stores, the streets, the transportation, but most of all it is in the courts. The only chance that the “different” man has at attaining his rights are subject to a jury and judge, who almost certainly are the hateful prejudice. The 13th and 14th Amendments were implemented to “satisfy” the “different” man and please those in majority rule.

Summary of Evidence:

“Civil Rights Act”, passed March 1, 1875, entitled “An act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights.” (18 St. 335). The historical documentation of several Civil Rights Cases was found in several books and websites, yet the most dramatic were those accounted by African American men and women who had gone through such experiences of racial discrimination.

Now it was tough reading my sources and trying to stay neutral on the aspect of who was correct for opinion is always true when backed up with reasoning. I remember watching a documentary and in it was an interview given by a discriminator who with out effort stated his reason for prejudice. He simply stated, “The negro’s were taking my job”, effortless and compelling.

When asked if he had preformed any hate crimes as a youngster he undoubtedly agreed. Was this not illegal? A hate crime today and back then is and was punishable by a jail sentence but he was never imprisoned. Read, in a paragraph of a prologue to injustice was this statement, “I would have liked to respect white America if I was given the chance.” According to this woman, she never had the opportunity to meet a congenial white American who respected her.

Does this woman have the right to stress the situation at hand? The white man in the previous quote was a racist and admitted to it, in spite of this, the woman who appeared to be a suffragette for her cause was also a racist. How? She did not like the “white” man, therefore being racist towards whites. These two people totally took upon the meaning of blatant nonsense.

Where was the chance for one to be neutral on a side of racism and social acceptance? It was totally one sided where the hatred was “two way”, and the more evidence studied only led to more prejudice found. Two cases came to my attention while doing research and they were critical in a sense that how can such charges be brought up on such lousy claims. “It is obvious that the primary and important question in all the cases is the constitutionality of the law; for if the law is unconstitutional none of the prosecutions can stand. Are these sections constitutional?

The essence of the law is to declare that, in the enjoyment of the accommodations and privileges of inns, public conveyances, theaters, and other places of public amusement, no distinction shall be made between citizens of different race or color, or between those who have, and those who have not, been slaves.

Its effect is to declare that in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement, colored citizens, whether formerly slaves or not, and citizens of other races, shall have the same accommodations and privileges in all inns, public conveyances, and places of amusement, as are enjoyed by white citizens; and vice versa.

Has congress constitutional power to make such a law? Of course, no one will contend that the power to pass it was contained in the constitution before the adoption of the last three amendments. The power is sought, first, in the fourteenth amendment, and the views and arguments of distinguished senators, advanced while the law was under consideration, claiming authority to pass it by virtue of that amendment, are the principal arguments adduced in favor of the power”(Michael Ariens). A power which was based upon majority rule once again.

Evaluation of Sources:

“Two of the cases, those against Stanley and Nichols, were indictments for denying to persons of color the accommodations and privileges of an inn or hotel; two of them, those against Ryan and Singleton, were, one on information, the other an indictment, for denying to individuals the privileges and accommodations of a theatre, the information against Ryan being for refusing a colored person a seat in the dress circle of Maguire's theatre in San Francisco; and the [***2] indictment against Singleton was for denying to another person, whose color was not stated, the full enjoyment of the accommodations of the theatre known as the Grand Opera House in New York, "said denial not being made for any reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude." (hrcr.org). Two extremely superficial cases that I evaluated which eventually came out with an utterly different conclusion than I previously thought.

UNITED STATES v. STANLEY

And

UNITED STATES v. NICHOLS

The denial of inn and hotel privileges. The dictionary definition of a privilege is that of a special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. I underlined two of the most important aspects to the definition which were right and caste. Now a “right” is a synonym for privilege, therefore saying that the Civil “Rights” can also be considered Civil Privileges.

This would also mean that the “civil” aspect or as the dictionary would say “the rights of private individuals” are a privilege owed to us and we as citizens are to be able to access our freedoms freely. Why was the black man so oppressed? Did his/her “dirty” appearance as some would say cause havoc in the town as if he/she were a leaper? The inn is an understandable place for not wanting a dirty person, hygiene issues were and are very important aspects to maintain a clean “social” environment.

The social is regarded only for whites as if colored people were not actually real people but possessions due to their previous slavery crisis. It is definitely too late to argue an issue of slavery at the moment because with the implement of African American political leaders and social extremists the issue has minimal chances of rising again.

UNITED STATES v. RYAN

And

UNITED STATES v. SINGLETON

These two cases basically are about who sits where and if “I” can come in. Ridiculous to think such psycho paranoia a colored person could create, that is not underestimating but defending the cause. A theater is a place for public enjoyment and it is respected that seats and certain sections do have prices and mainly the more money you have the closer you sit. African Americans even though minimal at the time did have some money, enough to sit front row for some and with a greedy eye they were given the

seat without question to their color. By doing this the money transaction was done, there were no refunds, or exchanges. The colored individual goes to sit in his/her seat earned and paid for and its barbarically thrown out do to complaints and breaking the “rules”.

Laws are very similar to rules almost the same in every situation meaning that laws and rules are meant to be obeyed. The rules set forth were most certainly over writable by law but it was that the racist judges were those who were wealthy and sitting in the front seat where the colored person was. The rich white judge kicked him/her out, the law kicked him/her out.

Analysis:

The law is brash and harmful to a criminal and it is also the same to the unjustly accused. In US vs. Stanley/Nichols there were no crime recorded notes in the written documentation of the incident. If permitting a colored person to sleep in a hotel for the reason of being colored was the issue then the hotel owner is in code for tampering with right and the law. Should not the hotel owner be the one suffering the payment of a sentence or she he/she not be subject to a fine.

The same theory applies for the case of the US vs. Ryan/Singleton situation where the owner had no true reasonable evidence for segregation or prejudice which did in fact make he/she the one in breach of the law. For years and this goes beyond the civil war, prejudice and racism existed with the dawning of the Jews and the Gentiles in ancient Roman scripture, where one was subject to the other as if the caste system were based solely on color or for sake of ancient times, religion. The truth behind social discomfort lied and lies in the conscience of man who has and will always be entitled to his opinion in this great country flawed numerously.

Conclusion:

Truly the attributions of these unfortunate events did culminate to the execution of new amendments and rights for the man fallen victim of this intolerance. The reality of these “crimes” still exist and when interpreted why weren’t Grant, Hayes, and Arthur more authoritarian with the need for reform. It is truly a shame to have realized that such a powerful nation that we live in was built with lies, hate, bloodshed, and arrogance.

In retrospect if these motives weren’t taken would we be the world power we are today, probably not. It just happens to be that the past falls into this Pandora’s Box where only when opened do the problems arise. The social injustice of 1875-1883 was nothing more than a cornerstone for the development of a future solid morale.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: