How does Ableman v. Booth complicate our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states?
Footnote: I do want you to read and grasp Taylor’s analysis of Dred Scott, but we will definitely talk about Dred Scott on Thursday, so try focus on Ableman for now. This might seem strange because it’s chronologically backward, but I promise you there are good reasons for such an approach, which I’ll explain in class.
Constitutional Law (Powers) Spring 2019 
The Ableman v. Booth decision upheld the fugitive slave act which allowed the return of runaway slaves to be returned if they crossed state lines or were on federal territory. This decision also established a clear stance on the supremacy of the federal government to states. Judge Taney in the majority opinion argued that if states were to be able to stay in judgement of federal law then it will interfere with a unified judicial precedent. At the heart of the issue lies the supremacy statue which was often directly cited in the opinion but Taney took it a step forward and used the necessary and proper clause to justify the judicial power the supreme court had in states vs federal rights case. On the surface this case was one step closer to the civil war further dividing the nation on the issue of slavery ,however this case also established a dominance of the federal government over the states.
LikeLike
The reading showcases the complicated interaction of the state and federal government in relation to slavery. It has always been apparent in the judiciary the issue of states rights. The main question that arises from the reading is the scope in which the central government can invoke their will over the people. In regards to slavery we see the actions of Booth against the federal government in direct violation of the law, but with the state of Wisconsin overlooking federal statue. The Wisconsin Supreme Court attempted to annul the judgment of the federal court thereby over stepping their boundaries. To simply put the federal government in terms of laws has the last say and that becomes law of the land. State judiciaries or legislatures cannot under any circumstances make laws that contradict federal laws. The job to review the constitutionality of any law is left on the shoulders of the federal courts. Although, state laws were moral entrepreneurs the Fugitive Slave Act held its position to dictate all states in the union. The issue of slavery at the time was a hot boiled issue, but was closely related to the rights of the state which will later be a factor in the 1860 election.
LikeLike
Even though the case Ableman v. Booth is usually viewed as a case that perpetuated racism (and it did), a close reading of the case revealed the Taney Court’s decision was far more complicated and didn’t simply boil down to Justices being racist. Generally speaking, the continuance of slavery is believed to be due to the varying state’s policies but the court case established the idea even though the separation of powers exists the Supreme Court has the final say on certain controversial issues. In this specific case, when the Wisconsin supreme court tried to subvert the federal government’s ruling and in response, the Taney Court argued that they did not possess the power to do so and in doing so they overstepped their judicial power, it was interesting to think about because the Supreme Court was being more technical in approach than political. While I didn’t agree with the federal government’s decision to uphold the Fugitive slave clause, I do agree with the idea that a lower courts decision shouldn’t override a higher court’s decision. If it were to, then any law could be disregarded and as Justice McLean notes, lawlessness would ensure. With that being said, I do know that despite the fact that a specific law exists it may not be morally right and if individuals don’t agree with said law they should have a right not to follow it but they should try to alter the law instead of just blatantly disregarding it. On another note, most individuals think of Congress as the (federal) lawmaker, but the Supreme Court ultimately gets the last say in the end. Of course, the legislative branch is tasked with how to enforce it, but the judicial branch dictates what is to be enforced.
LikeLike
Great summary, Sarah-Hannah. It sounds like you are sympathetic to the logic of the Taney Court here, if not the outcome. But it is still the case that the country itself is founded on a healthy spirit of defiance to unjust laws, and arguably has been enriched by this spirit since. How do we balance this tradition with the need for law and order? That’s the big question! I think you’ve understood McClean and Taney’s answers very well indeed
LikeLike
Albeman v. Booth had complicated our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states. This case complicated our traditional understanding between federal government and the states by determining whether or not the state of Wisconsin actually had the power to overturn the arrest of Albeman that involved a federal law. This case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and became involved in the continuing dispute over fugitive slaves. At the time, it was a controversial issue and the case involved not only a successful effort by a section of the Northern population to prevent the execution of an escaped slave, but as well the complete resistance of the federal government by the judiciary of the state of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court ruled that federal law is the supreme law of the land and that the state of Wisconsin didn’t have the power to overturn the federal law that landed Ableman in jail. Therefore, it was ruled that states had no right to bypass or challenge a federal law and had no power in enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.
LikeLike
I am happy to admit that I had never really heard of Ableman v. Booth before this reading. I believe that this may be because it truly exposes some of the pro slavery sentiments within the federal government pre civil war. The union is very happy to paint itself as the moral good in the conflict between north and south, but this case, and the events that lead to it, force us to take a less black and white approach to the civil war (seriously no pun intended). Regarding the relationship between slavery, federal v. state government it is clear that the federal government was making moves to take much more control over state government before the civil war even began. It’s interesting to watch these pro slavery cases get approved by the supreme court and see the northern states scrambling to find a way to protect their free population; it makes me think that the north might not have stuck to the union either had there not been a change in government regarding slavery.
LikeLike
Yes, it is a decision that often slips under the radar. I first came across it in Harold Hyman’s book “A More Perfect Union,” which is an interesting mix of constitutional and wider political history. I also think you have hit on the key thing I wanted to illustrate with this reading: The complexity of “states rights” on the question of slavery. We usually think of the pro-state argument as purely Southern, but things were rather more confusing than this. We’ll talk more in class.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth complicates our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states because while many petitioned for the abatement of slavery, like slave owners James Madison, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, it could not be completely achieved so the Fugitive Slave Act was enacted. It was written that under the Articles of Confederation, it was left up to the states to control traditional slavery until they hoped it slowly dwindled out but when it came to the Fugitive Slave Act, it seemed as if the federal government was continuing to feed into it by forcing states to return slaves to be returned back to states they were ‘owned’ in. It became complicated when New York’s Supreme Court called the act unconstitutional and abolished slavery yet they still returned a runaway slave to his ‘owner’ which gave claim that slavery could not be prohibited by federal authority. This case is an example that states cannot ignore federal law, law of the land, just because it is not agreed upon which is what happened when Wisconsin released Booth from jail and tried to unsuccessfully trump federal law. Overall, the Federal government’s decisions could not be overlooked by state courts in matters of federal law, even if the Framers were attempting to abolish it at the Constitutional Convention.
LikeLike
Well summarized, Sharon. The basic fact that many Northern states accepted was “we don’t like this, but we have to live with it” – until Wisconsin took this stand in 1859. Their attempt to “nullify” federal law has a long tradition, and we’ll try figure out it’s main elements in class today. In general, however, I think your understanding of Ableman is very good.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth complicate traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states by showing that the courts are willing to violate many laws it upheld. One of the laws was the fugitive slave act, which serves the purpose of punishing those who have assisted the escape of wanted slaves from their slave owners. In the case Sherman Booth was the individual who had helped a fugitive slave known as Joshua Glover escape from his owner. They were both prosecuted. However, Booth was freed from any conviction due to the writ of habeas corpus. Generally, the common belief would be that the individuals would aid in capturing the slaves. And those whom violate this act would be subject to punishment, but Booth was able to counter this condition due to their being an writ of error in the U.S supreme court. The case was reviewed since it went against legislation regarding slavery. It was due to the idea that slaves were allowed in some states, but not in other. The reason why Ableman’s actions were so effective was because it was justifiable and he presented that the restriction of Glover’s liberty was unconstitutional. Despite Ableman’s efforts, Glover was still restrained through federal orders and state orders could not overrule over this matter.
LikeLike
The decisions in the able case set the precedent that even tho both federal and
state tend to have different view points when it comes to interpreting laws. the state still has to answer to
the federal government. it also redefined the roles of federal and state
governments because for this case it involved a First Amendment challenge to a Washington State law the outcome ended up being different from the case where a Sherman M. Booth broke into a jail
and released slave Joshua Glover, who was held on a warrant issued from the district
court, t it was proclaimed that Glover “was restrained of his liberty” and that the 1850 Fugitive Slave law was unconstitutional.
LikeLike
I think you have the core issue with this point, Javier: “The state still has to answer to the federal government.” I would add: So do individuals. Taney was unhappy with both the Wisconsin Court and Booth himself for defying the Fugitive Slave Law. Moreover, it’s interesting that Northern states were proclaiming “states rights!” whereas Southerners wanted a strong federal government to help with the recovery of fugitives. An inversion of how we often see the story!
LikeLike
As John Marshall’s successor for Supreme Court Judge, Roger Brooke Taney focused on defining perimeters of the state within the federal government. Ableman vs Booth complicates our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government, and the states because it undermined the power of the state – state courts cannot overrule federal decisions and laws. Through this decision, Taney was able to conclude that federal and state government cannot work concurrently because there is an imbalance between the two; federal and state authority have “separate spheres of influence”. The court decision was not received well by southern states because it reaffirmed the final authority of the central government. Meanwhile, because it upheld pro-slavery statues, the decision was also condemned by northern abolitionists.
LikeLike
Excellent summary, Sally – thanks!
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth complicate our understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states. Traditional understandings of the relationship do not focus on the push back by the states that wanted to abolish slavery. Scott v. Sandford established that slaves could never become citizens as they were seen as property instead of a person. As a direct response to the court decision, the free states passed personal-liberty laws meant to work around that decision. In the case of Ableman v. Booth, abolitionist newspaper editor Sherman M. Booth led a group into a Milwaukee jail to release Joshua Glover, a slave who escaped from his owner, Benjamin S. Garland. Glover had found work in Wisconsin but was “held on a warrant issued from the District Court of United States.” Garland utilized the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to arrest Garland. Federal Marshal Stephen V.R. Ableman ignored the writ Booth obtained which stated that the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. Although Glover was not recaptured, Booth was convicted of violating federal law. Justice Roger B. Taney reinforced and expanded federal government power. Although it appeared that each state had jurisdiction over how slavery would or would not be enacted within their perimeters, Justice Taney firmly stated that was not the case. The idea that slaves were seen as property regardless of the laws of the individual state overrides the power of states. The countless court decisions made during that time reaffirmed the precedent that the federal government had the ultimate decision over slavery.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth complicates our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states because of the process and events that led to federal sovereignty. Booth helped Glover escape from jail, he believed that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional and that he was “restrained from his liberty” which is why he went for a habeas corpus from the Wisconsin Supreme Court. While, Stephen V.R. Ableman did not agree in releasing Glover because he was incorporated within federal charge, and could not be liberated by the state. Tension between federal and state government intensified when the Wisconsin Supreme Court refuted the prosecution of those who were involved in freeing Glover from jail. As a matter of fact, it was seen that the Wisconsin Supreme Court exceeded its jurisdiction legally. Consequently, the relationship between state and federal government was assured with Chief Justice Roger Taney who redefined the notion of authorities within the state and federal government. For example, “federal and state authority inhabit separate spheres of influence, but that in all cases the states answers to the federal government.” This establishes a conformity between the states and federal roles in government; while the states preserve their own rights, the federal government overall ties everything in and maintains most authority. Additionally, Ableman v. Booth’s arguments was often mentioned and referenced into many following cases. These cases include Tarble’s Case (1872), Younger v. Harris (1971), and Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. (1985). In these cases, the law was often challenged and it complicated their traditional understanding of the federal government and the states, as well as the extent and precision towards jurisdictional sovereignty. In spite of that, overall the Ableman v. Booth set the foundation for state and federal government court decisions.
LikeLike
This is a really good post, Britney. Thanks! I like that you added in the future decisions that cited Ableman. We’ll talk about this important point in class.
LikeLike
My initial understanding was that the power of the federal government overcame that of the states when it came to slavery. Thus, forcing Northern states to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act, which favored the Southern slave-holding states. However, the decision in Ableman v. Booth has changed my perspective on this relationship between federal and state government in regard to slavery. Ableman v. Booth has demonstrated that it did not really favor neither side of the issue. Instead, the decision of the case gave reason to the anti-Federalist concern that the federal government under the power of the Supreme Court would stip the states of its powers since it would claim original jurisprudence for itself. Therefore, the outcome of Ableman v. Booth was not a victory of neither party involved as it further constrained the power of the states.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth
LikeLike
Sorry the previous comment was a mistake.
Ableman v. Booth resulted in the decision by the US Supreme Court to uphold the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Act and the assertion that the federal government holds more power than state governments. My take from this case is that some states, specifically the Northern states, were strongly opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act seeing it as a violation of liberty and unconstitutional. So the state governments and federal government had completely different outlooks on this law. As with the ordeal of Booth being arrested and released on a writ of habeas corpus, this showed the power the federal government exercised over the states. The Supreme Court of the US reversed this decision by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, claiming that this was a federal case and states could not intervene. I would guess that this complicates our traditional understanding because the federal government is not really coexisting with the state governments and forcing them to uphold a law that the states deem unconstitutional, in the Fugitive Slave Act.
LikeLike
I think your answer here is very good, Kevin: “I would guess that this complicates our traditional understanding because the federal government is not really coexisting with the state governments and forcing them to uphold a law that the states deem unconstitutional, in the Fugitive Slave Act.”
The only other thing I thought might “complicate” our traditional understanding is that these were Northern states shouting about “states rights,” something we usually associate with the South. Or maybe this wasn’t surprising!
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth, as the author put it, ” was the final link in this chain of events that led to the tempest of civil war.” This case was brought up because the Fugitive Slave Act was challenged by the state court of Wisconsin. Sherman Booth and a few other people had freed a escaped slave from prison, and was arrested as a result. The Wisconsin court had ruled that the slave act was unconstitutional and had decided to release Booth from custody. When the case was appealed to the federal court, things changed. The federal court claimed that the state courts did not have the authority to claim supremacy over federal law. The judicial powers had to be uniform and if state courts were jumping over the federal courts in power rankings, that wasn’t going to slide. This decision weakened the relationship between states and the federal government. This led from more unrest by the states and as the author stated was one of the final events that led to the Civil War. I think it was good that the federal government put the states power in place because it strengthened and unified the federal governments judicial power.
LikeLike
Thanks for this response, Eric. You have the facts and the concepts very well grasped. But we’ll challenge the argument/opinion in your very last sentence today in class 🙂
LikeLike
Albi Miraka
Previous cases has led to ambiguous understanding of sovereign jurisdiction. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court holds a great amount of power, the term “Stare-Decisis” comes to play. It is also quite interesting to understand how crucial these opinions published by these justices are into the way we develop notions of how certain activities or certain “facts” come to be. Yet with future cases, regarding the sovereign jurisdiction, the Supreme Court will “further usurp the power from the States and claim original Jurisdiction from themselves”. This was was the understating of the fear that the Anti-Federalists felt regarding the powers that the Federal government has over the State government. To conclude, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney has perpetually cemented the notion that Federal and State authority inhabit separate spheres of influence, yet the states must answer to the Federal government.
LikeLike
In 1859, the Supreme Court ruling in Ableman v. Booth under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney truly threw our courts system as well as our federal system in for a loop. Taking into consideration the volatile political turmoil regarding slavery that was inevitably going to reach its peak, the establishment of the Supreme Court’s power and jurisdiction usurping state courts’ jurisdiction had long-lasting implications, potentially dangerous and liable implications.
As I was doing the reading, I understood where Taney was coming from, but I felt as if further clarification was necessary. The Supreme Court, especially when giving their opinions, takes it upon themselves (occasionally) to intentionally obscure or do not provide clarification with their reasonings. Even if the opinion is pages long, sometimes it never gets to the heart of the issue. Furthermore, these questions popped in my head throughout various points of the reading: at what point would state courts’ jurisdiction be obsolete if the Supreme Court could essentially just quote the Supremacy Clause? With slavery, it is most definitely a moral issue as mentioned, so who is to say who has the final decision when it comes to issues regarding morals and ethics, especially taking into consideration how Wisconsin clearly differentiated in opinion from the federal government? I guess this all goes to back to the main question at hand; Ableman v. Booth managed to complicate our understanding of the federal government and the states because we believe there to be a certain level of distinction and separateness, but when issues like slavery arise, the courts have a clear hierarchy that may be problematic as we see it since moral issues may not be dealt with so morally.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth complicate our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states by the lack of true understanding of state’s role regarding the court system. As was stated in the reading, “Taney ultimately concluded that a balance could not be ascertained between these two entities and, therefore, that the “separate spheres of influence” theory was unworkable” (112). As we all know, slavery has been one of, if not the most, contentious parts of American history. Regarding slavery, from state to state, interpreting the Constitution has been a conundrum because states wanted to appease their constituents while the federal supreme judiciary wanted to have the last say. The topic of slavery, in my opinion, should never be contested for not being the cause of the Civil War. It is because of cases such as Abelman v.Booth that made the war inevitable. Chief Justice Taney’s unanimous opinion condemned the Wisconsin Supreme Court as having “subvert[ed] the very foundations of this government” (108).
In this particular case, Joshua Glover, a slave who had escaped from his master and apprehended for doing so, was broken out of a Milwaukee jail by Sherman Booth. Booth felt compelled to do so because he felt as though Federal Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional due to habeas corpus. The Wisconsin Supreme Court felt as though they did not have to adhere to habeas corpus and because of this act of defiance, the case was presented to the Supreme Court. Essentially, Justice Taney reprimanded the Wisconsin court that “…“There can be no such thing as judicial authority, unless it is conferred by a government or sovereignty; and if the judges and Courts of Wisconsin possess the jurisdiction they claim, they derive it either from the United States or the State.” (108).
LikeLike
The case of Ableman v. Booth does indeed complicate the long lasting traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government, and the states. One reason for this is because traditionally the right over slaves and the slave trade was usually left to the states which would explain why certain states allowed slavery while others different. However in this case, Taney establishes the idea that the Fugitive Slave Act was a constitutional federal law and thus the state of Wisconsin could not interfere with federal law cases as Booth was considered a federal prisoner. The Fugitive Slave Act wasn’t as enforced in Northern states and different states had their own way of interpreting and fighting back against laws regarding slavery. However after the case of Booth, I think Taney definitely makes clear that federal law is supreme to state law and states cannot interfere with federal law. I think before this case, the relationship between slavery and states was stronger and it was dependent on the specific state, whether it was on the North or the South, whereas after this case we see the influence and impact of the federal government in when it comes to laws regarding slavery.
LikeLike
The relationship between the federal and state power was based on comity. Chief Justice Marshall had established a foundation for the federal government, specially for the Supreme Court. Tamey further expanded this foundation and stablished in Ableman that federal court decisions had the final word.
Tamey had argued that neither federal nor state governments had the power to free slaves, because slaves were considered property and not human beings. Taylor argued that Tamey’s rationale could have been influenced by his own racial bias. Tamey had argued that although some states had free slaves, they often cooperated with non-free states by returning those slaves on the fugitive act.
Tamey’s pro-slavery rulings had angered those free states, and according to Taylor led to the civil war.
LikeLike
A state can’t rule on federal law and the federal government can’t rule on state law. So since slavery was both a federal and state issue they had to rule differently.
Booth obtained a writ of habeas corpus from Justice A. D. Smith of Wisconsin
the supreme court that asserted Glover “was restrained of his liberty” and that 1850
Fugitive Slave law was unconstitutional. When presented with the writ, Federal Marshal Stephen V. R. Ableman refused to release Glover, on the grounds that he was being properly held in federal custody and thus could not
be released through a state court order. After assisting in Glover’s escape, Booth and his accomplices were arrested, tried, and convicted of violating federal law
LikeLike
My question here, I suppose, is what is the “traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government, and the states”? I’m not so sure my personal understanding of the relationship is the traditional one, but I feel it must not be because I don’t see how this decision adjusts my understanding of the relationship.
Throughout Taney’s tenure as Chief Justice, it would appear that he was and advocate for the states being able to act freely under the established rule of law. Therefore, as slavery and the Fugitive Slave Act were both legal under the Constitution, each state had the right to decide for itself whether it would allow slavery or not. And since the federal laws superseded those of each state, the states were not able to interfere with another state’s right to allow slavery.
From this, Ableman vs Booth follows simply – the states are able to act within the realm of what the sederal system has allowed. When the Wisconsin Supreme Court interfered, the issue was not to do with slavery itself but to do with its direct interference of federal jurisdiction.
My understanding of the slavery and federal vs ftates issue is precisely this: states were able to allow or not allow slavery within their own borders, but had no control over another states’ ability to legislate the same. The federal government was not going to allow any state to unilaterally act in contention with another state’s federally allowed right to legal slavery. All the while, the SCOTUS presented that it is not to the judiciary to decide based on morality, but rather rule of law – i.e. should the states want to end slavery in the US, it must come from the legislative side, through a constitutional amendment. Thus, the decision in Ableman is very much in line with this.
In fact, I fail to see how this ruling was a repudiation of the other cited cases in the reading (but do not have enough knowledge of Taney jurisprudence to know if it was a true repudiation of Taney’s previous positions on state vs federal jurisdiction). But, then, my understanding of the slavery issue and state and federal rights in regards thereto does not seem to have been complicated much by a more clear understanding of the Ableman decision. So maybe I’m missing something, somewhere.
My understanding was (and appended further now by specific knowledge of the Ableman decision), and is, that the States each had the ability to act within their sphere, so long as it did not defy the federal laws. Where there were states pushing these limits before Ableman, Taney in this decision clearly laid out that while states have jurisdictional purview, it is only within the realm allowed by the federal government.
LikeLike
I think you’ve grasped this well, John. What I meant by our “traditional understanding” is that we historically have seen “states rights” as a largely Southern movement, but especially after the Fugitive Slave Law, Northern states were making the most radical “states rights” arguments. I think you are correct that Ableman didn’t really upend any previous precedents, but it was a strong assertion of federal power from a Jacksonian justice who was traditionally rather friendly to the states.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth established a vast precedent that placed the federal government at the center of American Politics. It complicated our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government, and the states. Under the Articles of Federation, the regulation of human chattel slavery had been left to the sole discretion of the states. James Madison argued for the ending of the slave trade. Benjamin Franklin also argued for abolition. The object of the gathering was to produce a governing document that would be ratified by the majority of the states. The fugitive state law which was the heart of several Taney court decisions regarding chattel property and comity issues. The Taney court stated in 1847 that a fugitive state law was not compatible with the constitution. This complicates the relationship between slavery, the federal government, and states because although several states found slavery to be offensive and states controlled the slaves yet the federal government was the one who was making the decisions that dealt with slavery. The decision had reaffirmed, at the expense of the states, the final authority of the central government, the states were appalled by it; and because it upheld pro-slavery statutes within the body of the constitution, as well as previous court rulings with regards to slavery.
LikeLike
Ableman v. Booth has complicated our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government, and the states because growing up and going to school we were taught the difference between slave and federal government and state government and how they play a part with each other. The federal government can not make state ruling and a state can not make a federal ruling, because of the state law is written differently from the federal law. Federal law is speaking from a national point of view. The fugitive slave law was unconstitutional, because when Federal Marshal Stephen V.R. Ableman refused to release Glover, that he was properly held in federal custody and thus could not be released through a state court. This lead to having an assisting Glover’s escape, which Booth and his accomplices were arrested, tried, and lastly convicted for violating federal laws.
LikeLike
Ableman v Booth challenges our traditional understanding of the federal government and states by granting that the federal government has the ultimate jurisdiction. For instance, a case prior was Scott v Sanford which ruled that property can’t be denied to its owner. Although states In this case tried to enact personal liberty laws to protect slaves ultimately they were declared unconstitutional. In Booth’s case Wisconsin’s Supreme Court tried to hinder the case from being federally reviewed. However, in this case it was ruled that states have to fall subordinate to the federal government. Additionally, Wisconsin overstepped its legal authority when it refused to prosecute those who aided Glover to escape. Taney stated that once a party is imprisoned under the U.S. authority not state or judge can challenge it. Furthermore, Taney emphasized that the two entities cannot be balanced, reinforcing it would cause lawless violence.
LikeLike
Ableman V. Booth was an important Supreme Court decision that is often over looked. The decision was written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Upon hearing the name Roger B. Taney, many people quickly associate him with the infamous Dred Scott ruling. However the Ableman ruling is still important and expands on Chief Justice Taney’s legal theory, which was brought to light by the Dred Scott decision. In this case, Taney ruled that the Wisconsin State Supreme Court did not possess the authority to rule the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional and nullify an arrest made by a US Marshall. The author of the article writes that they believe that it was this ruling the inflamed tension and fear the Southern states had over the Federal government. They feared the federal government will claim original jurisdiction and remove all state sovereignty. The Ableman decision was a landmark decision that created huge precedent for federal government’s ultimate jurisdiction over constitutional issues. The author concludes their piece by congratulating Taney for solving the issue Chief Justice Marshall and the rest of the Federalists struggled with, establishing federal sovereignty and supremacy over state sovereignty.
LikeLike
The Ableman v. Booth case complicated our traditional understanding of the relationship between slavery, the federal government and the states by showing that the case was used not only to make a decision about slavery, but addressed the dichotomy between state and federal government. The Taney court used the case as a way to strengthen and solidify the federal jurisdiction over the state’s. The case was on the fugitive slave act and whether states could deter from what the federal government had decided, but it was mainly on if the state sovereignty could challenge federal decisions, and the decision of Ableman v. Booth stated that the states could not.
LikeLike