Belladonna
New member
Gibbons Vs. Ogden, 1824
The case of Gibbons vs. Ogden was one of the deciding factors in the creation of a stable commercial system that would propel the United States into its current position as a World Power. New York, being influenced by Sectionalist ideals, created a law that obstructed the free flow of interstate trade. This was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was shown that not only did New York claim that the power of its own legislature was supreme to that of the entire nation, but the law was also a threat to the commercial system of the country. The issue of the stability of the Union was at stake - if the court chose to allow the states to have more say than the federal government, the country's internal structure would collapse. However, due to the Negro-Seamen Act in South Carolina and the fear of slaves being freed by an all-powerful Congress, Chief Justice John Marshall was faced with his choice to say that Congress was the supreme power over all commercial aspects would split the country and civil war would ensue. Thus, the court was forced into a "middle of the road" decision-they said that Congress had the power to legislate on the Commerce of the United States, as opposed to direct control. The Supreme Court also said that the New York Stearaboat Act was in conflict with the Federal Coasting Act, and thus, the New York law had to be repealed. This decision managed to both protect the interests of the Southern Slavers and save the Nation's Economic structure from the whims of the states, fostering immense growth that would allow America to dominate as a world power.
The situation leading to the hearing of the case in the Supreme Court began when Thomas Gibbons was persecuted by his competitor, Aaron Ogden, because he broke the New York Stearaboat Act by navigating the HuRABon River without a proper New York License. However, Ogden had the required License, so he was given the free reign of a monopoly after Gibbons was restricted from the New York waterways. Gibbons demanded that the New York License was wholly unnecessary the piloting of ships in New York waters. Gibbons justified this furthermore by stating that he already had a Federal license that met the standarRAB of the Federal Coasting Act. The Federal Coasting Act provided licenses that allowed any boat owner to pilot their "fire and steam" powered boats on any waterway in the nation so long as they had a proper Federal license. Unfortunately, his argument did not hold up and Ogden sued him in New York State Courts. Gibbons lost the case, as it would have been close to impossible for Gibbons to win his point against stubborn and sovereign-minded New York. Having lost his livelihood to the strongheaded New York and the guile of Ogden, he made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took great interest in the case, for it was a battle between the Sectionalist idea of the sovereignty of states and the uniform control of the nation under the Federal Government, and maintaining the power of the Federal Government was one of the obligations of the Supreme Court. The state of New York was, in effect, supporting a trend that could destroy the balanced economic system of the United States, and order needed to be restored.
In a short time, the case became much more than just an issue of stearaboat traffic. New York was deeply influenced by Sectionalism, purporting that by signing the Declaration of Independence, each state had become a sovereign power. This being so, the states had the ability to "levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do to all other acts and things which independent States may of right do," and thus, New York made its Legislature the supreme power, as opposed to allowing the National Legislature to hold that place. The Sectionalist movement of New York had to be ended before it could grow out of control and turn New York totally sovereign and spread the poisonous vices of sectionalism throughout the country, breaking it apart and dissolving any power that it had gained previously through unity. Recognizing this, John Marshall and the other Judges were determined to end the belligerence of New York.
Another issue in the case was that the New York Stearaboat Act was a limitation to the growth of the National Economy. It supported the splitting of the economy into different forms to suit separate parts of the country. From there, the separate sections and their regulations would grind up against each other, creating huge conflicts leading to a lack of economic profits and progress and the greater spread of disunity. Realizing this danger, the Supreme Court had yet another reason to prevent the New York law from continuing any further damage. This could be reinforced by the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section VIII, Paragraph 3. U.S. Constitution), which stated that Congress was the presiding power over the Economy. Yet, this plan proposed even further difficulties. The actual Commerce Clause was relatively vague, and thus, open to the interpretation of many. The original interpretation was that Congress had direct control of all interstate commercial dealings. At about the same time, the Negro-Seamen Act was passed in South Carolina. It restricted Free Blacks from entering its borders, which was at first viewed as a blockage of Interstate Commerce. In order for the Supreme Court to follow through with its original plan that would remove the New York Stearaboat Act, they would also have to remove the Negro-Seamen Act, for it was based upon interstate commerce as well.
A further issue was that by instituting the Commerce Clause and placing the control of all Commerce and its related products in the hanRAB of Congress. The South feared this greatly. Slaves were to be considered as products of Commerce, being classified as tradable property. This stimulated hate for the Commerce Clause and brought up threats of secession and civil war in the South. With the control of slaves in the hanRAB of Congress, the Southern livelihood was at stake of being destroyed. The Southern slave-owners feared that enough opposition could be stirred up in the Congress that would permit those opposing the South to free the slaves, who would then fight back at their previous masters, resulting in a huge blooRABhed. All that was necessary to perform this sort of function was a majority vote, and with the control of the slaves in the hanRAB of Congress, it would take only just the slightest anti-Southern majority to cause the downfall of the Southern Empire. With the threats of war and rebellion, the Marshall was trapped between the South and their threats of secession and the Sectionalist disease and the threats to the preservation and growth of the Economy. Knowing that the duty of the Supreme Court was to uphold the control of unity under the Federal Government, Marshall was left with a tough decision. He had to decide between threatening the South and possibly triggering a civil war, and allowing the dissolution of the nation in a different way by allowing Sectionalism and a disregard for the need for economic stability to spread throughout the states and split the entire country into separate, weak states.
Marshall and his compatriots were left to make a decision that would either make or break the Union. However, rather than put the United States at risk, they carefully plotted a middle-of-the-road decision. Marshall began this by creating a new interpretation of the Commerce Clause. He stated that, according to the Commerce Clause, Congress did not have direct power over the commerce of the United States. Instead, they were limited to only being able to legislate on the commerce. This was a great relief to the Southerners, for they did not have to fear for their lifestyle and living being dissolved by Congress. From there, he carefully treaded onward into dealing with the original cause of the case. He said that the New York Stearaboat Act was in direct conflict with the Federal Coasting Act, and that since Congress was superior to the New York legislature, the New York Stearaboat Act would have to be removed. By doing so, he protected the Negro-Seamen Act, because it was not in conflict with any congressional acts, further helping to pacify the South. With this, New York retracted the Stearaboat Act, allowing Gibbons to continue his job and removing a threat to the National unity and Economy. He also staved off the threat of Southern secession and civil war, even if only for a few years. Marshall's decisions also reined in belligerent Sectionalists back under the control of the one Central Government and allowed for a stable base for the Economy that was regulated, although not wholly, by Congress. These decisions would provide a necessary platform for a stable, unified economy that would allow the United States to advance by leaps and bounRAB, surpassing its competition in Europe by 100 years. In addition, by protecting the interests of the South, Marshall held the Civil War and the Southern secession at bay for at least another 20 years, allowing the economy to grow. All these decisions allowed the Industrial Revolution and American trade to pick up momentum, resulting in new technology and huge profits, which were vital for the United States to become the world power that it is today.
The case of Gibbons vs. Ogden was one of the deciding factors in the creation of a stable commercial system that would propel the United States into its current position as a World Power. New York, being influenced by Sectionalist ideals, created a law that obstructed the free flow of interstate trade. This was taken to the Supreme Court, where it was shown that not only did New York claim that the power of its own legislature was supreme to that of the entire nation, but the law was also a threat to the commercial system of the country. The issue of the stability of the Union was at stake - if the court chose to allow the states to have more say than the federal government, the country's internal structure would collapse. However, due to the Negro-Seamen Act in South Carolina and the fear of slaves being freed by an all-powerful Congress, Chief Justice John Marshall was faced with his choice to say that Congress was the supreme power over all commercial aspects would split the country and civil war would ensue. Thus, the court was forced into a "middle of the road" decision-they said that Congress had the power to legislate on the Commerce of the United States, as opposed to direct control. The Supreme Court also said that the New York Stearaboat Act was in conflict with the Federal Coasting Act, and thus, the New York law had to be repealed. This decision managed to both protect the interests of the Southern Slavers and save the Nation's Economic structure from the whims of the states, fostering immense growth that would allow America to dominate as a world power.
The situation leading to the hearing of the case in the Supreme Court began when Thomas Gibbons was persecuted by his competitor, Aaron Ogden, because he broke the New York Stearaboat Act by navigating the HuRABon River without a proper New York License. However, Ogden had the required License, so he was given the free reign of a monopoly after Gibbons was restricted from the New York waterways. Gibbons demanded that the New York License was wholly unnecessary the piloting of ships in New York waters. Gibbons justified this furthermore by stating that he already had a Federal license that met the standarRAB of the Federal Coasting Act. The Federal Coasting Act provided licenses that allowed any boat owner to pilot their "fire and steam" powered boats on any waterway in the nation so long as they had a proper Federal license. Unfortunately, his argument did not hold up and Ogden sued him in New York State Courts. Gibbons lost the case, as it would have been close to impossible for Gibbons to win his point against stubborn and sovereign-minded New York. Having lost his livelihood to the strongheaded New York and the guile of Ogden, he made an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court took great interest in the case, for it was a battle between the Sectionalist idea of the sovereignty of states and the uniform control of the nation under the Federal Government, and maintaining the power of the Federal Government was one of the obligations of the Supreme Court. The state of New York was, in effect, supporting a trend that could destroy the balanced economic system of the United States, and order needed to be restored.
In a short time, the case became much more than just an issue of stearaboat traffic. New York was deeply influenced by Sectionalism, purporting that by signing the Declaration of Independence, each state had become a sovereign power. This being so, the states had the ability to "levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do to all other acts and things which independent States may of right do," and thus, New York made its Legislature the supreme power, as opposed to allowing the National Legislature to hold that place. The Sectionalist movement of New York had to be ended before it could grow out of control and turn New York totally sovereign and spread the poisonous vices of sectionalism throughout the country, breaking it apart and dissolving any power that it had gained previously through unity. Recognizing this, John Marshall and the other Judges were determined to end the belligerence of New York.
Another issue in the case was that the New York Stearaboat Act was a limitation to the growth of the National Economy. It supported the splitting of the economy into different forms to suit separate parts of the country. From there, the separate sections and their regulations would grind up against each other, creating huge conflicts leading to a lack of economic profits and progress and the greater spread of disunity. Realizing this danger, the Supreme Court had yet another reason to prevent the New York law from continuing any further damage. This could be reinforced by the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section VIII, Paragraph 3. U.S. Constitution), which stated that Congress was the presiding power over the Economy. Yet, this plan proposed even further difficulties. The actual Commerce Clause was relatively vague, and thus, open to the interpretation of many. The original interpretation was that Congress had direct control of all interstate commercial dealings. At about the same time, the Negro-Seamen Act was passed in South Carolina. It restricted Free Blacks from entering its borders, which was at first viewed as a blockage of Interstate Commerce. In order for the Supreme Court to follow through with its original plan that would remove the New York Stearaboat Act, they would also have to remove the Negro-Seamen Act, for it was based upon interstate commerce as well.
A further issue was that by instituting the Commerce Clause and placing the control of all Commerce and its related products in the hanRAB of Congress. The South feared this greatly. Slaves were to be considered as products of Commerce, being classified as tradable property. This stimulated hate for the Commerce Clause and brought up threats of secession and civil war in the South. With the control of slaves in the hanRAB of Congress, the Southern livelihood was at stake of being destroyed. The Southern slave-owners feared that enough opposition could be stirred up in the Congress that would permit those opposing the South to free the slaves, who would then fight back at their previous masters, resulting in a huge blooRABhed. All that was necessary to perform this sort of function was a majority vote, and with the control of the slaves in the hanRAB of Congress, it would take only just the slightest anti-Southern majority to cause the downfall of the Southern Empire. With the threats of war and rebellion, the Marshall was trapped between the South and their threats of secession and the Sectionalist disease and the threats to the preservation and growth of the Economy. Knowing that the duty of the Supreme Court was to uphold the control of unity under the Federal Government, Marshall was left with a tough decision. He had to decide between threatening the South and possibly triggering a civil war, and allowing the dissolution of the nation in a different way by allowing Sectionalism and a disregard for the need for economic stability to spread throughout the states and split the entire country into separate, weak states.
Marshall and his compatriots were left to make a decision that would either make or break the Union. However, rather than put the United States at risk, they carefully plotted a middle-of-the-road decision. Marshall began this by creating a new interpretation of the Commerce Clause. He stated that, according to the Commerce Clause, Congress did not have direct power over the commerce of the United States. Instead, they were limited to only being able to legislate on the commerce. This was a great relief to the Southerners, for they did not have to fear for their lifestyle and living being dissolved by Congress. From there, he carefully treaded onward into dealing with the original cause of the case. He said that the New York Stearaboat Act was in direct conflict with the Federal Coasting Act, and that since Congress was superior to the New York legislature, the New York Stearaboat Act would have to be removed. By doing so, he protected the Negro-Seamen Act, because it was not in conflict with any congressional acts, further helping to pacify the South. With this, New York retracted the Stearaboat Act, allowing Gibbons to continue his job and removing a threat to the National unity and Economy. He also staved off the threat of Southern secession and civil war, even if only for a few years. Marshall's decisions also reined in belligerent Sectionalists back under the control of the one Central Government and allowed for a stable base for the Economy that was regulated, although not wholly, by Congress. These decisions would provide a necessary platform for a stable, unified economy that would allow the United States to advance by leaps and bounRAB, surpassing its competition in Europe by 100 years. In addition, by protecting the interests of the South, Marshall held the Civil War and the Southern secession at bay for at least another 20 years, allowing the economy to grow. All these decisions allowed the Industrial Revolution and American trade to pick up momentum, resulting in new technology and huge profits, which were vital for the United States to become the world power that it is today.