Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
6. That was one of the main points of the Civil War
Wed Apr 8, 2015, 07:39 PM
Apr 2015

It was not a "bad" decision legally. Yes, before the Civil War, the Bill of Rights was not understood to apply to the states.

I mean, golly, look at the text of the First Amendment, for example. "CONGRESS shall make no law..." etc. That's pretty specific. Absent something else, it only applies to Congress. It is why, for example, Jefferson was also the author of the Virginia statute on religious freedom which, yes, was a separate statute eliminating religious taxes and religious tests for office in Virginia.

What rights people had, relative to the state governments, varied wildly in the 1800's. The rights people had in relation to the federal government were purposefully broader, because it was believed that people were primarily citizens of their state first, and the nation second.

Again, it's part of the reason why we fought a war, and got the 14th Amendment afterwards.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»1833 SCOTUS: Barron v. Ba...»Reply #6