A few questions about US History included Gibbons v. Ogden and the Great Slavery Commerce?

Question

My US History teacher announce that there would be a test which included the Gibbons v. Ogden and the Great Slavery Commerece(?)
But these two materials are not cover in the book or any handouts the teacher gave us
instead, a 30 minute old video was shown, which was pretty confusing
I dont get how the Gibbons v. Odgen has anything to do with steam boat, have to have a NY license(for what?) and slavery
only know about stong central govt v. state's rights

Answer 1

Gibbons v. Ogden [1824] has been used as precedent for a number of subsequent cases and it was the last major decision of Chief Justice John Marshall. The best description is in the case transcript, however I’ll try to provide something shorter, please realize that such summaries will miss some items.

At the time of this case there was growing support for strict constitutional construction and State sovereignty. Marshall’s opinion was a vigorous protest against this growing trend. In that context this opinion provided legal foundation against the power of States (which would become a segment of the argument for the State secession of 1861.. This was done in the context of Steam boat (licensed by States) monopolies as had been issued to Aaron Ogden by the State of New York to operate a steam boat across the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Ogden had a license for a steam boat issued under the ‘federal’ Coasting Act and he challenged the monopoly by competing.

Marshall’s opinion four primary points (which I recommend that you read in the case transcript) which were:
1. What does commerce comprehend?
2. To what extent may Congress exercise its commercial regulatory power within the separate States?
3. Is Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce exclusive, or does a State have concurrent power in this field?
4. Should the commerce power of Congress (and inferentially other powers too) be construed broadly for the national welfare or be construed strictly in order to protest the reserved police powers of the States?

Chief John Marshall in part stated in his opinion: “ . . . . Powerful and ingenious minds, taking, as postulates, that the powers expressly granted to the government of the Union are to be contracted, by construction, into the narrowest possible compass, and that the original powers of the States are retained, if any possible construction will retain them, may, by a course of well digested, but refined and metaphysical reasoning, founded on these premises, explain away the constitution of our country, and leave it a magnificent structure indeed, to look at, but totally unfit for use. . . . “

This ended the steamboat monopolies and put another chink in the constitutional position of State sovereignty. (as an aside, this decision fit well within the prior decision of Marshall’s of 1819 in the McCulloch v. Maryland where he expanded the powers of congress). This was one more step in the process of those who desired to evolve a stronger general government (relative to the States) which would eventually lead to President Lincoln’s rejection of the Constitutionally support of State secession.

(Personally I believe that Marshall was anti the position of the majority of the Founders as also did Madison and Jefferson in their letters referring to Marshall’s decision in McCulloch v. Maryland and that he continued this wrong constitutional perspective in Gibbons v. Ogden.

Answer 2

Slaves ought to and did break out to the North, many via the Underground Railroad, which replaced right into a community of sympathetic human beings prepared to help them on their way. a lot of those did acquire training. and led dignified jobs. Frederick Douglass is a impressive occasion. in spite of the undeniable fact that, after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, they have been in consistent hazard of being caught and forcibly back to slavery. interior the South, slaves ought to each so often be employed out, save their earnings (or a piece of them), and finally purchase their freedom. mockingly, in spite of the undeniable fact that, after the Civil conflict, the jobs attainable to blacks interior the South have been in basic terms the main menial, even to those who had skills.