Political Awareness

Note: Political Awareness’s published communication is never authorized by any candidate or their committees.

Understanding The 13th Amendment

The 13th Amendment:

“Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”.

Back in the time of our founders, slavery was a common event. It was looked at as a business and a way to promote economic and industrial growth. As time progressed, our society began to split into two groups. The pro-slavery group supported slavery and viewed it as essential to the economy. While the abolitionist group sought to end slavery and viewed it as morally wrong and incompatible with the ideals of America. The Civil War was the beginning of the end of slavery. As the Emancipation Proclamation only freed people in a certain location. The abolitionists began looking for a solution. This is where the 13th Amendment came into play.

Key Clauses Explained Further

• Prohibition Clause:
  • Prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
• Enforcement Clause:
  • Grants Congress the power to enforce the Amendment through appropriate legislation.
• Exceptions Clause:
  • For cases where a person has been convicted of a crime, involuntary servitude is an allowed punishment.

Formative Cases For the 13th Amendment

Commonwealth v. Jennison(1783): Contributed to the movement to abolish slavery in the northern states when the Massachusetts state supreme court declared slavery unconstitutional. 

1. Quork Walker won his freedom in 1781. After challenging his enslavement with the argument that this was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780.
2. Nathaniel Jennison, his former owner, and others assaulted and imprisoned Quock Walker. Later, Jennison was indicted for assault but claimed there was no crime committed as Walker was his wife’s slave and therefore his actions were not criminal.
3. Decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Jennison was guilty, as Walker was a free man when Jennison and company had assaulted him.

United v. Libellants and Claimants of the Schooner Amistad (1841): Highlighted the injustice of the slave trade and the implicit right to freedom. 

1. June 27th, 1839, a ship named the Amistad departed from Havana, Cuba, for Puerto Principal, carrying kidnapped and enslaved Africans.
2. During the journey, an uprising occurred, and the enslaved Africans were able to take control of the ship. Ordering the members of the crew who survived. They attempted to sail back to Africa or a place where slavery was not permitted.
3. With little knowledge of navigation. The surviving members of the original crew deceived them and sailed to the United States instead.
4. A U.S Navy ship called the Washington took possession of the Amistad. When it reached the coast and all of the individuals on board.
5. The Africans were imprisoned, and legal disputes began regarding ownership rights to the ship as well as the enslaved Africans.
6. The district court ruled the Africans were not property that could be given to their captors, and they could be sent back to Africa under a U.S law from 1819.
7. The U.S government appealed this case, and it was affirmed by the circuit court. However, the U.S Supreme Court reversed part of the decision, stating that instead of returning the Africans to their home, they would instead be declared free.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Affirmed that African Americans were not citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court. 

1. Dred Scott was an enslaved African man who, over the period of time with his enslaver, an Army surgeon, had lived in free territories.
2. Later, both returned to Missouri, a slave state. After the death of his enslaver, Dr. John Emerson, Dred Scott tried to buy his freedom from Irene Emerson, the widow of Dr. Emerson, but she refused.
3. Dred Scott decided to sue Irene Emerson for his freedom, based on the argument that his residence within free territories had made him a legally free man.
4. The courts refused his request, and ownership of Dred Scott was given to Irene Emersin’s brother, who lived in New York. Suing again, this time Dred Scott appealed with the argument of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
5. The U.S Supreme Court disagreed, stating Dred Scott was not a U.S citizen and no person of color, whether free or enslaved, would be considered a citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

Ableman v. Booth (1859):  Upheld the supremacy of federal law over state court rulings, increasing opposition to federal enforcement of pro-slavery laws. 

1. Sherman Booth helped facilitate the release of a fugitive slave, Joshua Glover. Glover, who had been arrested and was going to be sent back to his enslaver under the Fugitive Slave ACT of 1850, was able to escape after being released and was not brought back to his enslaver.
2. Sherman Booth was later arrested for violating the Fugitive Slave Act. Booth then filed for a writ of habeas, a court order issued to release someone who is held unlawfully. Which was upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
3. The federal government, which represented U.S Marshal Ableman, then appealed the case to the U.S Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld Booth’s conviction and ruled the Wisconsin Supreme Court had no authority to free a federal prisoner or block the enforcement of federal law.

Challenges Involving the 13th Amendment 

• The exception clause is argued by critics to be a modern-day slavery practice, particularly within the prison system. Concerns surrounding forced prison labour, which usually involves poor working conditions and low pay, have been on the rise.

Conclusion

The 13th Amendment took years to accomplish the abolition of slavery.  During that time, natural legal rights were denied to individuals based on skin color. People were treated as less than human, and a hierarchy that pushed for profits rather than human rights was the norm. After its abolishment, history was able to turn over a new leaf, and change was able to begin. To this day, the rights of people of color are something that is continuing to be a topic of debate. Only time will tell which way history will go.