Gibbons V. Ogden Case Study
The landmark case that opened up the ability for business to operate across state lines was Gibbons v. Ogden. The case started in 1809, when the Legislature of the State of New York granted exclusive navigation privileges of all boats that moved by fire or stream in the waters within the jurisdiction of the state, for twenty years, to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton (Livingston). They wanted a monopoly on a national network of steamboat lines, but were unsuccessful in their pursuit. Only the Orleans Territory awarded them a monopoly on the lower Mississippi (Livingston). Competitors were unhappy and challenged this decision. They argued that the federal government had exclusive commerce power and that power superseded state laws. They took their case to court and Livingston and Fulton responded by attempting to undercut their rivals. They would offer them franchises, which they could still control, and they would buy their boats. It
…show more content…
wasn’t until former New Jersey Governor Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons formed a partnership to operate a franchise that this monopoly was fully addressed. Their partnership lasted three years when Gibbons operated another steamboat on Ogden’s route between Elizabethtown and New York City that had been licensed by the United States Congress under a 1793 law regulating the coasting trade. (Gibbons v Ogden). Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York asking the court to restrain Gibbons from operating on these waters. Daniel Webster, Gibbon’s lawyer, argued that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce. He cited Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution arguing that to ignore this would allow confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies. Ogden prevailed however, and Gibbons was issued an injunction to restrict him from operating his boats. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court, where, after several delays, the court began to discuss the meaning of the commerce clause in 1824. This issue had gained a wider, national interest as Congress was debating a bill to provide a federal survey of roads and canals across newly acquired territories. The South was concerned over these issues and what it would mean for them as slavery was increasing and there were concerns regarding the federal government interfering with the rights of these states. Not only were they concerned about the question of navigation rights, but by the courts debate about defining what “commerce” meant, since slaves were not considered citizens, but property, thus having no more rights than a bag of sugar. The North had equal concern regarding this case as well. The question of states rights vs federal rights could impact the northern states to ability to create their own laws regarding slavery. Gibbons was successful in his case with the Supreme Court. It was decided that “commerce” was more than mere traffic and that is was the trade of commodities. This broader interpretation included navigation. This decision greatly expanded the power of the federal government. The court concluded that the federal government had the authority to regulate commerce between states thus ending state granted monopolies and allowing free enterprise.
Since this ruling only pertained to commerce between states, not commerce that did not leave the state, it would ensure that goods would be able to smoothly pass from its point of origin to its destination, unhindered by local and state restrictions. Business would be able to expand their base of operations and would be able to purchase and ship supplies and finished goods from other business, to their factories and to their customers. So wheat from the Midwest could be shipped to a mill on the east coast and then sold to a bakery in New York, who could produce baked goods that, in turn, could be shipped back to the Midwest for consumption. This could be done smoothly and effectively under this ruling.
The development of the national railroad led to an integrated national economic system only due to the ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden. Without this ruling the development of the national railroad would not have been possible. States would have continued to regulate any commerce entering into their borders, and a standardization of the gauge would never have happened. This would have resulted in the railroad being an inefficient means to transport goods and would have hampered regional economic specialization. It would have become too costly to specialize in any one industry if the product could not be sold and transported beyond the states borders.
This would result in the lack of uniformity of goods and resulted in higher prices. Trains would not be able to smoothly move along the tracks, but would have to have costly and complicated systems to switch tracks. To ship goods from Michigan to Florida would involve six different states and six different tracks. What might normally take hours to ship, would now take days.
There are different ways that “commerce” has been defined. 1. The trafficking and trading of economic commodities
2. The trafficking and trading of economic commodities and the modes of their transportation
3. The trafficking and trading of any kind of commodity and the mode of its transportation
4. The movement of any thing or any person and its mode of transportation
5. Economic activity that substantially or causally impacts on the trafficking, trading, or transportation of commodities
6. Any human activity or other phenomenon that has any ultimate impact on activities in more states than one.
In Scot v Sanford, (1857) the central question was the rights of blacks to be free. The Court determined that slaves were property and not citizens, therefore they had no right to sue in court and property could not be taken from its owner without due process of the law. Under this ruling, Dred Scot was considered property. Under Gibbons, the federal government had the right to regulate transportation of property between states.
Had this argument been used, Scot, having lived in a free state and a free territory, would have been under the regulation of the federal government in traveling from a free state to a slave state. The buying and selling of slaves would have come under federal laws, which, under Gibbons, superseded state laws. Transporting those “goods” would then be under federal jurisdiction and regulation. The whole institution of slavery would have been severely undermined.
Under Gibbons, Chief Justice Marshall chose to define interstate commerce not ‘’between” states, but “among” states meaning commerce which concerns more States than one. That is a broader definition and meant that all states would have to be taken into consideration when regulating interstate commerce. Since Scot would have been considered property and was being transported between states, this would have applied to him as well.
Since the government was interested in making sure that there was uniformity in the transportation of goods among states, they would have been forced to address slavery head on. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 furthered the institution of slavery for the south by obligating the north and free black states to not only hunt down runaway slaves, but return them into a life of slavery. Even free blacks were not immune to these slave catchers who not only hunted down the fugitive slaves, but took free blacks as well. Those who were caught had no legal recourse, and free blacks had little more. If Gibbons were applied, than the transportation of slaves would be regulated. If Dred Scot was not property and was indeed free because he had been living in a free state and a free territory, then he could not be made to go to a slave state to be enslaved again. This decision would have made fugitive slave acts moot and it would have been repealed. If Dred Scot was property, the court would have to address the legality of transporting “legal goods” to states where the goods are deemed illegal. Using the Gibbons ruling would have had broad implications on the expansion of slavery.
There would have been no debate about allowing slavery in the newly expanding territories and the South would have been under a tremendous financial and political strain in order to keep the institution of slavery viable. It would effectively make slavery illegal and ineffectual.
Freeing Dred Scot under the Gibbons rule would have ended the expansion of slavery into the newly formed territories since you could no longer transport slaves, either as property or as people. The courts would have had to address the use of slave labor to produce goods as well further crippling slavery. Had Scot been freed, John Brown would have never felt the need to use violence as a means to free slaves. Since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 would have been repealed, John Brown would not have needed to start and uprising at Harpers Ferry, and the resulting anger and fear that it caused would not have played a part in our nation going to
war. In fact, the whole abolitionist movement would have changed focus from ending slavery, to working on equal rights for blacks. The Civil War would have not happened, but Civil Rights would have been decades earlier. Without fear of being returned to slavery, free blacks would have created a larger political voice to protect their freedoms and to gain the economic freedoms that their white counterparts did. They would have pushed for the right to become citizens, to vote, to own land and to participate in all areas of society. The world today would look far different. Cities that have been polarized by race would not be divided today. Detroit would be as big, or bigger, than New York. It would not have endured the economic hardships and riots that resulted from the effort to keep blacks out of the city, then out of the suburbs. There would be no Black Lives Matter movements and no need to address affirmative action.
wasn’t until former New Jersey Governor Aaron Ogden and Thomas Gibbons formed a partnership to operate a franchise that this monopoly was fully addressed. Their partnership lasted three years when Gibbons operated another steamboat on Ogden’s route between Elizabethtown and New York City that had been licensed by the United States Congress under a 1793 law regulating the coasting trade. (Gibbons v Ogden). Ogden filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of New York asking the court to restrain Gibbons from operating on these waters. Daniel Webster, Gibbon’s lawyer, argued that Congress had exclusive national power over interstate commerce. He cited Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution arguing that to ignore this would allow confusing and contradictory local regulatory policies. Ogden prevailed however, and Gibbons was issued an injunction to restrict him from operating his boats. Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court, where, after several delays, the court began to discuss the meaning of the commerce clause in 1824. This issue had gained a wider, national interest as Congress was debating a bill to provide a federal survey of roads and canals across newly acquired territories. The South was concerned over these issues and what it would mean for them as slavery was increasing and there were concerns regarding the federal government interfering with the rights of these states. Not only were they concerned about the question of navigation rights, but by the courts debate about defining what “commerce” meant, since slaves were not considered citizens, but property, thus having no more rights than a bag of sugar. The North had equal concern regarding this case as well. The question of states rights vs federal rights could impact the northern states to ability to create their own laws regarding slavery. Gibbons was successful in his case with the Supreme Court. It was decided that “commerce” was more than mere traffic and that is was the trade of commodities. This broader interpretation included navigation. This decision greatly expanded the power of the federal government. The court concluded that the federal government had the authority to regulate commerce between states thus ending state granted monopolies and allowing free enterprise.
Since this ruling only pertained to commerce between states, not commerce that did not leave the state, it would ensure that goods would be able to smoothly pass from its point of origin to its destination, unhindered by local and state restrictions. Business would be able to expand their base of operations and would be able to purchase and ship supplies and finished goods from other business, to their factories and to their customers. So wheat from the Midwest could be shipped to a mill on the east coast and then sold to a bakery in New York, who could produce baked goods that, in turn, could be shipped back to the Midwest for consumption. This could be done smoothly and effectively under this ruling.
The development of the national railroad led to an integrated national economic system only due to the ruling of Gibbons v. Ogden. Without this ruling the development of the national railroad would not have been possible. States would have continued to regulate any commerce entering into their borders, and a standardization of the gauge would never have happened. This would have resulted in the railroad being an inefficient means to transport goods and would have hampered regional economic specialization. It would have become too costly to specialize in any one industry if the product could not be sold and transported beyond the states borders.
This would result in the lack of uniformity of goods and resulted in higher prices. Trains would not be able to smoothly move along the tracks, but would have to have costly and complicated systems to switch tracks. To ship goods from Michigan to Florida would involve six different states and six different tracks. What might normally take hours to ship, would now take days.
There are different ways that “commerce” has been defined. 1. The trafficking and trading of economic commodities
2. The trafficking and trading of economic commodities and the modes of their transportation
3. The trafficking and trading of any kind of commodity and the mode of its transportation
4. The movement of any thing or any person and its mode of transportation
5. Economic activity that substantially or causally impacts on the trafficking, trading, or transportation of commodities
6. Any human activity or other phenomenon that has any ultimate impact on activities in more states than one.
In Scot v Sanford, (1857) the central question was the rights of blacks to be free. The Court determined that slaves were property and not citizens, therefore they had no right to sue in court and property could not be taken from its owner without due process of the law. Under this ruling, Dred Scot was considered property. Under Gibbons, the federal government had the right to regulate transportation of property between states.
Had this argument been used, Scot, having lived in a free state and a free territory, would have been under the regulation of the federal government in traveling from a free state to a slave state. The buying and selling of slaves would have come under federal laws, which, under Gibbons, superseded state laws. Transporting those “goods” would then be under federal jurisdiction and regulation. The whole institution of slavery would have been severely undermined.
Under Gibbons, Chief Justice Marshall chose to define interstate commerce not ‘’between” states, but “among” states meaning commerce which concerns more States than one. That is a broader definition and meant that all states would have to be taken into consideration when regulating interstate commerce. Since Scot would have been considered property and was being transported between states, this would have applied to him as well.
Since the government was interested in making sure that there was uniformity in the transportation of goods among states, they would have been forced to address slavery head on. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 furthered the institution of slavery for the south by obligating the north and free black states to not only hunt down runaway slaves, but return them into a life of slavery. Even free blacks were not immune to these slave catchers who not only hunted down the fugitive slaves, but took free blacks as well. Those who were caught had no legal recourse, and free blacks had little more. If Gibbons were applied, than the transportation of slaves would be regulated. If Dred Scot was not property and was indeed free because he had been living in a free state and a free territory, then he could not be made to go to a slave state to be enslaved again. This decision would have made fugitive slave acts moot and it would have been repealed. If Dred Scot was property, the court would have to address the legality of transporting “legal goods” to states where the goods are deemed illegal. Using the Gibbons ruling would have had broad implications on the expansion of slavery.
There would have been no debate about allowing slavery in the newly expanding territories and the South would have been under a tremendous financial and political strain in order to keep the institution of slavery viable. It would effectively make slavery illegal and ineffectual.
Freeing Dred Scot under the Gibbons rule would have ended the expansion of slavery into the newly formed territories since you could no longer transport slaves, either as property or as people. The courts would have had to address the use of slave labor to produce goods as well further crippling slavery. Had Scot been freed, John Brown would have never felt the need to use violence as a means to free slaves. Since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 would have been repealed, John Brown would not have needed to start and uprising at Harpers Ferry, and the resulting anger and fear that it caused would not have played a part in our nation going to
war. In fact, the whole abolitionist movement would have changed focus from ending slavery, to working on equal rights for blacks. The Civil War would have not happened, but Civil Rights would have been decades earlier. Without fear of being returned to slavery, free blacks would have created a larger political voice to protect their freedoms and to gain the economic freedoms that their white counterparts did. They would have pushed for the right to become citizens, to vote, to own land and to participate in all areas of society. The world today would look far different. Cities that have been polarized by race would not be divided today. Detroit would be as big, or bigger, than New York. It would not have endured the economic hardships and riots that resulted from the effort to keep blacks out of the city, then out of the suburbs. There would be no Black Lives Matter movements and no need to address affirmative action.