Talk:Slaughter-House Cases/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conspiracy Theory Comment Adjustment and Rebuttment Removal

I removed the following from the end of this article:

"This is because it is one of the first decisions in which the court's opinion discussed a form of dual citizenship: state citizenship and U.S. citizenship.

The holding that this is the first time the court recognized a distinction between state citizenship and federal citizenship is not completely true. In Dred Scott v. Sanford the court held that that a State may declare a person a citizen for their own purposes, however they do not become a US citizen by virtue of state citizenship. This holding was necessary to deny Scott the ability to bring action in federal courts. By failing to be a citizen he could not properly maintain a diversity action for trespass."

It is not proper to argue the question in the article itself as it will only serve to confuse the reader. I clarified the conspiracy theory comment by stating that it was one of the first cases following the ratification of the 14th Amendment that made it noteworthy. Any mention of cases prior to 1870 are more aptly placed in an article relating to the relevant clause of the amendment which overruled the citizenship holdings in cases such as Scott v. Sanford. Skyler1534 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no discussion of how the P&I clause of the 14th amendment is differentiated from the P&I clause of Art. IV, i.e. what is different from the P&I in the 14th and the fundamental freedoms which are "too tedious to enumerate" from Art. IV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.110.31 (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't warrant a "B" quality rating with glaring factual errors.

The science is wrong....see section above. This article needs a bit of a rewrite and should be downgraded on the quality scale until that happens. 216.137.246.141 (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Only Adult mosquitos require a blood diet. Larval mosquitoes are filter feeders eating any microscopic life in the stagnant water they live in. Their diet thus includes bacteria feeding on "offal" Don Seib 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposition that dumping offal in the Mississippi River increased the number of mosquitos in New Orleans is speculation. If the public believed that it did, and knew that mosquitos transmit yellow fever, then perhaps this article should mention yellow fever as a part of the political environment. But absent evidence of such a public belief, and absent evidence that adult mosquitos feed on offal (which I strongly doubt), or that offal thrown into the Mississippi would measurably increase the food available to mosquito larvae, or that those larvae could mature into adults before the current carried them far past New Orleans, ... absent any support for this narrative, it is inappropriate to bring yellow fever into this article. Peter (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The decision itself contains none of the words "yellow", "cholera", "mosquito", "disease", or "offal"; it is not about the need to abate a public nuisance, but rather about the specific manner in which the state proposed to abate said nuisance, namely by granting a large business monopoly to a small number of (presumably politically connected) individuals. A brief background sketch of the underlying public nuisance is appropriate, but dwelling on it is just an emotional distraction. Peter (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the word "white" serve any purpose but to create bias?

The entry states that "He now argued for a new, broad reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that would allow white butchers to "sustain their lives through labor." What is the relevance of the race of the butchers in this case? It appears to me that it just creates bias against John Campbell. I think the point may have been to denote some sense of irony about the way he argued against reconstruction and still argued to broaden the 14th Amendment in this case. I don't, however, believe that the use of race in this case is the correct way of going about it. Its inclusion seems to be implying knowledge of Campbell's "real" intentions. Any comments? MikeNM (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I came to this talk page to see if anyone else noticed this. Either "white" should be removed or its relevance should be made clear. Anon, Wed Feb 25 18:58:02 EST 2009

No, I think it's important. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments were all passed in the wake of the Civil War to prevent Southern states from passing laws that would disadvantage newly freed slaves. But since that time, the 14th amendment has grown far beyond its original significance and protects rights of many different groups, not just blacks. The language of the due process and equal protection clauses isn't racially limited, and I think it's important to note that smart lawyers, such as Campbell, were able to argue that this language protected groups other than just freed slaves. That's why "white" is significant--you'd think that the first big 14th amendment case would involve black plaintiffs, but it doesn't. I added a sentence to this effect. Motorneuron (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a little bit confusing though, as that would imply the decision would only benefit white butchers as well as black butchers. --kizzle (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid erroneous implications, and still make this important point, I have added "of any race" after "butchers".76.225.191.30 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Current interpretation of the Fourteenth

Shouldn't the article mention somewhere that the holding in Slaughter-house cases has been reversed in practice, if not explicitly, and that no one could expect success today in federal court arguing a different set of rights pertinent to "state" as opposed ot "national" citizenship? Rlquall 14:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing stating what happens next or what became of the ruling whether reversed as the party mentions above or the aftermath of the ruling.--Aegisdgr (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some mention of the evolution of the interpretations since the Slaughter-House Cases.MikeNM (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, differences in citizenship rights between states and the nation are still recognized, especially with regard to the rights of individuals to marry and carry guns. While no one would say that you can be a citizen of a state without being a citizen of the nation, there are definitely different rights granted between the citizenry of each state...138.202.255.123 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

At the state level there is no distinction in rights offered to "residents" versus "citizens" as far as I know. The marriage and gun rights mentioned above, for instance, apply to all people residing or physically located within the state, whether or not they are a United States citizen. Presumably, if someone is a resident alien of the United States living in Georgia, they are not somehow a citizen of Georgia (even if they enjoy the rights offered under Georgia law). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.149.202 (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

Did anyone else notice that the current introductory paragraph has a bogus theory about public outcry regarding this case and the Lincoln Assasination? SCOTUS decided the case in 1873, 18 years after Abe's death. - Charlie, January 11, 2013

The introduction, etc. was all vandalism, which has since been undone. You could have undone it, too. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Three similar cases...

Of the three similar cases listed in the introduction, two are identical. If they are in fact distinct cases, it might be worth identifying that in some way. As it is it seems like the actual third case has been lost. After cursory review of the history shows that this flaw was introduced with the original edit adding the consolidated case names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.137.60 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't explain the opposing position sufficiently

Though it talks about who disagreed and there rational the article fails to explain how it was argued that the case was related to the related to the 14 amendment or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. I walked away from this article dealing dumber than I started as I have no understanding how anyone in there right mind could even think that this case is to the 14th amendment and the privileges and immunity clause. Clearly because I don't have the foundation to understand it. Bobshmit (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)