United States v. Cruikshank

United States v. Cruikshank

So I’m taking the deadline for this blog to the limit here. I am also taking Dr. Weise’s advice on what to write about, so I chose United States v. Cruikshank. To jog your memory, William Cruikshank was one of the white members of the Democratic Party in Colfax Louisiana. After the Louisiana election of 1872 democratic and republican runners for office contested the results, many times there would be two offices but eventually, the republicans prevailed since the federal government was republican. Tensions were high in all of Louisiana, and the ones who were mad were the ones with the most military experience. This was a bad combination.

                Armed with a cannon and rifles, the white democratic men of Colfax attacked and captured many of the freedmen who were gathering at the courthouse. After they set the roof on fire, the black republicans surrendered. It was after this surrender that most of the black men (women and children were given the opportunity to escape) were murdered. Many of them were beaten or tortured and their bodies were dumped in the river, or buried or just left out to rot. The number 150 that we are familiar with from the historical marker in Colfax is a large estimation. All figures were taken into consideration when that sign was made, as if the killing of black citizens was being celebrated. The sign was made in the 50’s though.

                On the subject of the trial, the name Cruikshank was only the name chosen to represent the trial. There were many more involved in the trial, nearly 100 other persons according to the trial transcript. The figure that I am drawing this from is the Supreme Court case, not from the trial that took place in Louisiana. I will go over both trials.

                It took a while to find all the men that were involved in the Colfax massacre, but after they did, 97 in all were brought to trial. The initial trial took place in New Orleans with two more to follow. In all, the men were charged with one murder and conspiracy against the rights of freedmen, a law which was very new and not very respected. The men were eventually acquitted of the murder and the enforcement act for protecting the rights of the freedmen was deemed unconstitutional.

                Almost two years later, the federal government appealed the case and it was brought before the Supreme Court. Justice was not obtainable. Because of the mindset of the time, or just pure racism, the men had convictions overturned and were again found not guilty. At least not guilty in that court, in so many words; the men were guilty but should have been tried in Louisiana. My interpretation of law isn’t very good, but from what I understand, murder was not a crime in the eyes of the federal government and it had to be prosecuted at the state level.

                So in short, the Supreme Court said that if the state did not have laws in place to protect certain groups of people i.e. Black people, then it would have the right to rule on and to protect those individuals. Since Louisiana did have laws in place to protect the rights of black people, the federal government ruled that it had no right to intervene, even if the state didn’t actually abide by those laws.

“but any outrages, atrocities, or conspiracies, whether against the colored race or the white race, which do not flow from this cause, but spring from the ordinary felonious or criminal intent which prompts to such unlawful acts, are not within the jurisdiction of the United States, but within the sole jurisdiction of the states, unless, indeed, the state, by its laws, denies to any particular race equality of rights, in which case the government of the United States may furnish remedy and redress to the fullest extent and in the most direct manner.” (United States V. Cruikshank case no. 14,897)