Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 3, 2024

Earl Warren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Earl Warren

14th Chief Justice of the United States
In office
October 5, 1953 – June 23, 1969
Nominated byDwight D. Eisenhower
Preceded byFred M. Vinson
Succeeded byWarren E. Burger
30th Governor of California
In office
January 4, 1943 – October 5, 1953
LieutenantFrederick F. Houser
Goodwin Knight
Preceded byCulbert Olson
Succeeded byGoodwin Knight
20th Attorney General of California
In office
January 3, 1939 – January 4, 1943
GovernorCulbert Olson
Preceded byUlysses S. Webb
Succeeded byRobert W. Kenny
Chair of the California Republican Party
In office
1932–1938
Preceded byLouis B. Mayer
Succeeded byJustus Craemer
District Attorney of Alameda County
In office
1925–1939
Preceded byEzra Decoto
Succeeded byRalph Hoyt
Personal details
BornMarch 19, 1891
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
DiedJuly 9, 1974 (aged 83)
Washington, D.C., U.S.
Resting placeArlington National Cemetery
Political partyRepublican
Spouse
Nina Meyers
(m. 1925)
Children6
EducationUniversity of California, Berkeley (BA, LLB)
Signature
Military service
AllegianceUnited States
Branch/serviceUnited States Army
Years of service1917–1918
Rank First Lieutenant
Unit91st Division

Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was an American attorney, politician, and jurist who served as the 30th governor of California from 1943 to 1953 and as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969. The Warren Court presided over a major shift in American constitutional jurisprudence, which has been recognized by many as a "Constitutional Revolution" in the liberal direction, with Warren writing the majority opinions in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Loving v. Virginia (1967). Warren also led the Warren Commission, a presidential commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He served as Governor of California from 1943 to 1953, and is the last chief justice to have served in an elected office before nomination to the Supreme Court. Warren is generally considered to be one of the most influential Supreme Court justices and political leaders in the history of the United States.

Warren was born in 1891 in Los Angeles and was raised in Bakersfield, California. After graduating from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, he began a legal career in Oakland. He was hired as a deputy district attorney for Alameda County in 1920 and was appointed district attorney in 1925. He emerged as a leader of the state Republican Party and won election as the Attorney General of California in 1938. In that position he supported, and was a firm proponent of, the forced removal and internment of over 100,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. In the 1942 California gubernatorial election, Warren defeated incumbent Democratic governor Culbert Olson. As the 30th Governor of California, Warren presided over a period of major growth—for the state as well as the nation. Serving from 1943 to 1953, Warren is the only governor of California to be elected for three consecutive terms.

Warren served as Thomas E. Dewey's running mate in the 1948 presidential election, but the ticket lost the election to incumbent President Harry S. Truman and Senator Alben W. Barkley in an election upset. Warren sought the Republican nomination in the 1952 presidential election, but the party nominated General Dwight D. Eisenhower. After Eisenhower won election as president, he appointed Warren as Chief Justice. A series of rulings made by the Warren Court in the 1950s helped lead to the decline of McCarthyism. Warren helped arrange a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. After Brown, the Warren Court continued to issue rulings that helped bring an end to the segregationist Jim Crow laws that were prevalent throughout the Southern United States. In Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964), the Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that prohibits racial segregation in public institutions and public accommodations.

In the 1960s, the Warren Court handed down several landmark rulings that significantly transformed criminal procedure, redistricting, and other areas of the law. Many of the Court's decisions incorporated the Bill of Rights, making the protections of the Bill of Rights apply to state and local governments. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established a criminal defendant's right to an attorney in felony cases, and Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required police officers to give what became known as the Miranda warning to suspects taken into police custody that advises them of their constitutional protections. Reynolds v. Sims (1964) established that all state legislative districts must be of roughly equal population size, while the Court's holding in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) required equal populations for congressional districts, thus achieving "one man, one vote" in the United States. Schmerber v. California (1966) established that forced extraction of a blood sample is not compelled testimony, illuminating the limits on the protections of the 4th and 5th Amendments and Warden v. Hayden (1967) dramatically expanded the rights of police to seize evidence with a search warrant, reversing the mere evidence rule. Furthermore, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) established a constitutional right to privacy and struck down a state law that restricted access to contraceptives, and Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down state anti-miscegenation laws, which had banned or otherwise regulated interracial marriage. Warren announced his retirement in 1968 and was succeeded by Appellate Judge Warren E. Burger in 1969. The Warren Court's rulings have received criticism, but have received widespread support and acclamation from both liberals and conservatives. As yet, few of the Court's decisions have been overturned.

Early life, family, and education

Warren as a U.S. Army officer in 1918

Warren was born in Los Angeles, California, on March 19, 1891, to Matt Warren and his wife, Crystal. Matt, whose original family name was Vaare, was born in Stavanger, Norway, in 1864, and he and his family migrated to the United States in 1866. Crystal, whose maiden name was Hernlund, was born in Hälsingland, Sweden; she and her family migrated to the United States when she was an infant. After marrying in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Mathias and Crystal settled in Southern California in 1889, where Matthias found work with the Southern Pacific Railroad. Earl Warren was the second of two children, after his older sister, Ethel. Earl did not receive a middle name; his father later commented that "when you were born I was too poor to give you a middle name." In 1896, the family resettled in Bakersfield, California, where Warren grew up. Though not an exceptional student, Warren graduated from Kern County High School in 1908.

Hoping to become a trial lawyer, Warren enrolled in the University of California, Berkeley after graduating from high school. He majored in political science and became a member of the La Junta Club, which became the Sigma Phi Society of California while Warren was attending college. Like many other students at Berkeley, Warren was influenced by the Progressive movement, and he was especially affected by Governor Hiram Johnson of California and Senator Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin. While at Berkeley, Warren was little more than an average student who earned decent but undistinguished grades and after his third year, he entered the school's Department of Jurisprudence (now UC Berkeley School of Law). He received a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1914. Like his classmates upon graduation, Warren was admitted to the California bar without examination. After graduation, he took a position with the Associated Oil Company in San Francisco. Warren disliked working at the company and was disgusted by the corruption he saw in San Francisco, so he took a position with the Oakland law firm of Robinson and Robinson.

After the United States entered World War I in April 1917, Warren volunteered for an officer training camp, but was rejected due to hemorrhoids. Still hoping to become an officer, Warren underwent a procedure to remove the hemorrhoids, but by the time he fully recovered from the operation the officer training camp had closed. Warren enlisted in the United States Army as a private in August 1917, and was assigned to Company I of the 91st Division's 363rd Infantry Regiment at Camp Lewis, Washington. He was made acting first sergeant of the company before being sent to a three-month officer training course. After he returned to the company in May 1918 as a second lieutenant, the regiment was sent to Camp Lee, Virginia, to train draftees. Warren spent the rest of the war there and was discharged less than a month after Armistice Day, following a promotion to first lieutenant. Warren remained in the United States Army Reserve until 1934, rising to the rank of captain.

City and district attorney

The René C. Davidson Courthouse, the main courthouse of the Alameda County Superior Court, completed in 1934

In late 1918, Warren returned to Oakland, where he accepted a position as the legislative assistant to Leon E. Gray, a newly elected member of the California State Assembly. Shortly after arriving in the state capital of Sacramento, Warren was appointed as the clerk of the Assembly Judiciary Committee. After a brief stint as a deputy city attorney for Oakland, in 1920 Warren was hired as a deputy district attorney for Alameda County. By the end of 1924, Warren had become the most senior person in the department outside of the district attorney, Ezra Decoto. Though many of his professional colleagues supported Calvin Coolidge, Warren cast his vote for Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette in the 1924 presidential election. That same year, Warren made his first foray into electoral politics, serving as the campaign manager for his friend, Republican Assemblyman Frank Anderson.

With the support of Governor Friend Richardson and publisher Joseph R. Knowland, a leader of the conservative faction of San Francisco Bay Area Republicans, Warren was appointed as the Alameda County district attorney in 1925. Warren faced a tough re-election campaign in 1926, as local Republican boss Michael Joseph Kelly sought to unseat him. Warren rejected political contributions and largely self-funded his campaign, leaving him at a financial disadvantage to Kelly's preferred candidate, Preston Higgins. Nonetheless, Warren won a landslide victory over Higgins, taking over two-thirds of the vote. When he ran for re-election again in 1930, he faced only token opposition.

Warren gained a statewide reputation as a tough, no-nonsense district attorney who fought corruption in government and ran his office in a nonpartisan manner. Warren strongly supported the autonomy of law enforcement agencies, but also believed that police and prosecutors had to act fairly. Unlike many other local law enforcement officials in the 1920s, Warren vigorously enforced Prohibition. In 1927, he launched a corruption investigation against Sheriff Burton Becker. After a trial that some in the press described as "the most sweeping exposé of graft in the history of the country," Warren won a conviction against Becker in 1930. When one of his own undercover agents admitted that he had perjured himself in order to win convictions in bootleg cases, Warren personally took charge of prosecuting the agent. Warren's efforts gained him national attention; a 1931 nationwide poll of law enforcement officials found that Warren was "the most intelligent and politically independent district attorney in the United States".

The Great Depression hit the San Francisco Bay area hard in the 1930s, leading to high levels of unemployment and a destabilization of the political order. Warren took a hard stance against labor in the buildup to the San Francisco General Strike. In Whitney v. California (1927) Warren prosecuted a woman under the California Criminal Syndicalism Act for attending a communist meeting in Oakland. In 1936, Warren faced one of the most controversial cases of his career after George W. Alberts, the chief engineer of a freighter, was found dead. Warren believed that Alberts was murdered in a conspiracy orchestrated by radical left-wing union members, and he won the conviction of union officials George Wallace, Earl King, Ernest Ramsay, and Frank Conner. Many union members argued that the defendants had been framed by Warren's office, and they organized protests of the trial.

State party leader

While continuing to serve as the district attorney of Alameda County, Warren emerged as leader of the state Republican Party. He served as the county chairman for Herbert Hoover's 1932 campaign and, after Franklin D. Roosevelt won that election, he attacked Roosevelt's New Deal policies. In 1934, Warren became chairman of the state Republican Party and he took a leading public role in opposing the gubernatorial candidacy of Democrat Upton Sinclair. Warren earned national notoriety in 1936 for leading a successful campaign to elect a slate of unpledged delegates to the 1936 Republican National Convention; he was motivated largely by his opposition to the influence of Governor Frank Merriam and publisher William Randolph Hearst. In the 1936 presidential election, Warren campaigned on behalf of the unsuccessful Republican nominee, Alf Landon.

Family and social life

After World War I, Warren lived with his sister and her husband in Oakland. In 1921, he met Nina Elisabeth Meyers (née Palmquist), a widowed, 28-year-old store manager with a three-year-old son. Nina had been born in Sweden to a Baptist minister and his wife, and her family had migrated to the United States when she was an infant. On October 4, 1925, shortly after Warren was appointed district attorney, Warren and Nina married. Their first child, Virginia, was born in 1928, and they had four more children: Earl Jr. (born 1930), Dorothy (born 1931), Nina Elisabeth (born 1933), and Robert (born 1935). Warren also adopted Nina's son, James. Warren was the father-in-law of John Charles Daly, the host of the television game show What's My Line through his daughter Virginia's marriage. Warren enjoyed a close relationship with his wife; one of their daughters later described it as "the most ideal relationship I could dream of." In 1935, the family moved to a seven-bedroom home just outside of downtown Oakland. Though the Warrens sent their children to Sunday school at a local Baptist church, Warren was not a regular churchgoer. In 1938, Warren's father, Matt, was murdered; investigators never discovered the identity of the murderer. Warren and his family moved to the state capital of Sacramento in 1943, and to Wardman-Park, a residential hotel in Washington, D.C., in 1953.

Warren was very active after 1919 in such groups as Freemasonry, the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, the Loyal Order of Moose (obtained the Pilgrim Degree of Merit, the highest award given in the fraternity) and the American Legion. Each one introduced Warren to new friends and political connections. He rose through the ranks in the Masons, culminating in his election in 1935 as the Grand Master of the Freemasons for the state of California from 1935 to 1936. Biographer Jim Newton says that Warren "thrived in the Masons because he shared their ideals, but those ideals also helped shape him, nurturing his commitment to service, deepening his conviction that society's problems were best addressed by small groups of enlightened, well-meaning citizens. Those ideals knitted together Warren's Progressivism, his Republicanism, and his Masonry."

Attorney General of California

California Attorney General

In 1934, Warren and his allies won passage of a state ballot measure that transformed the position of Attorney General of California into a full-time office; previous officeholders had worked part-time while maintaining their own private practice. After incumbent Ulysses S. Webb announced his retirement, Warren jumped into the 1938 state attorney general election. Earlier in the 20th century, progressives had passed a state constitutional amendment allowing for "cross-filing," whereby a candidate could file to run in multiple party primaries for the same office. Warren took advantage of that amendment and ran in multiple primaries. Even though he continued to serve as chairman of the state Republican Party until April 1938, Warren won the Republican, Progressive, and, crucially, Democratic primaries for attorney general. He faced no serious opposition in the 1938 elections, even while incumbent Republican Governor Frank Merriam was defeated by Democratic nominee Culbert Olson.

Once elected, he organized state law enforcement officials into regions and led a statewide anti-crime effort. One of his major initiatives was to crack down on gambling ships operating off the coast of Southern California. Warren continued many of the policies from his predecessor Ulysses S. Webb's four decades in office. These included eugenic forced sterilizations and the confiscation of land from Japanese owners. Warren, who was a member of the outspoken anti-Asian society Native Sons of the Golden West, successfully sought legislation expanding the land confiscations. During his time as Attorney General, Warren appointed as one of his deputy attorneys general Roger J. Traynor, who was then a law professor at UC Berkeley and later became the 23rd chief justice of California, as well as one of the most influential judges of his time.

Internment of Japanese Americans

After World War II broke out in Europe in 1939, foreign policy became an increasingly important issue in the United States; Warren rejected the isolationist tendencies of many Republicans and supported Roosevelt's rearmament campaign. The United States entered World War II after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Following the attack, Warren organized the state's civilian defense program, warning in January 1942 that "the Japanese situation as it exists in this state today may well be the Achilles' heel of the entire civilian defense effort." He became a driving force behind the internment of over one hundred thousand Japanese Americans without any charges or due process.

Though the decision to intern Japanese Americans was made by General John L. DeWitt, and the internment was carried out by federal officials, Warren's advocacy played a major role in providing public justification for the internment. In particular, Warren had claimed that Japanese Americans had willfully infiltrated "every strategic spot" in California coastal and valley counties, had warned of potentially greater danger from American born ethnic Japanese than from first-generation immigrants, and asserted that although there were means to test the loyalty of a "Caucasian" that the same could not be said for ethnic Japanese. Warren further argued that the complete lack of disloyal acts among Japanese Americans in California to date indicated that they intended to commit such acts in the future. Later, Warren vigorously protested the return of released internees back into California.

By early 1944, Warren had come to regret his role in the internment of Japanese Americans, and he eventually approved of the federal government's decision to allow Japanese Americans to begin returning to California in December 1944. However, he long resisted any public expression of regret in spite of years of repeated requests from the Japanese American community.

In a 1972 oral history interview, Warren said that "I feel that everybody who had anything to do with the relocation of the Japanese, after it was all over, had something of a guilty consciousness about it, and wanted to show that it wasn't a racial thing as much as it was a defense matter". When during the interview Warren mentioned the faces of the children separated from their parents, he broke down in tears and the interview was temporarily halted. In 1974, shortly before his death, Warren privately confided to journalist and former internee Morse Saito that he greatly regretted his actions during the evacuation.

In his posthumously published memoirs, Warren fully acknowledged his error, stating that he

since deeply regretted the removal order and my own testimony advocating it, because it was not in keeping with our American concept of freedom and the rights of citizens... Whenever I thought of the innocent little children who were torn from home, school friends, and congenial surroundings, I was conscience-stricken... [i]t was wrong to react so impulsively, without positive evidence of disloyalty.

— The Memoirs of Earl Warren (1977)

Governor of California

Warren as Governor of California

Election

Warren frequently clashed with Governor Culbert Olson over various issues, partly because they belonged to different parties. As early as 1939, supporters of Warren began making plans for his candidacy in California's 1942 gubernatorial election. Though initially reluctant to run, Warren announced his gubernatorial candidacy in April 1942. He cross-filed in the Democratic and Republican primaries, ran without a party label, and refused to endorse candidates running for other offices. He sought to attract voters regardless of party, and stated "I can and will support President Roosevelt better than Olson ever has or ever will." Many Democrats, including Olson, criticized Warren for "put[ting] on a cloak of nonpartisanship," but Warren's attempts to appear above parties resonated with many voters. In August, Warren easily won the Republican primary, and surprised many observers by nearly defeating Olson in the Democratic primary. In November, he decisively defeated Olson in the general election, taking just under 57 percent of the vote. Warren's victory immediately made him a figure with national stature, and he enjoyed good relations with both the conservative wing of the Republican Party, led by Robert A. Taft, and the moderate wing of the Republican Party, led by Thomas E. Dewey.

Policies

Governor Warren meets a young "gold miner" as part of the California centennials, 1948–1950

Warren modernized the office of governor, and state government generally. Like most progressives, Warren believed in efficiency and planning. During World War II, he aggressively pursued postwar economic planning. Fearing another postwar decline that would rival the depression years, Governor Earl Warren initiated public works projects similar to those of the New Deal to capitalize on wartime tax surpluses and provide jobs for returning veterans. For example, his support of the Collier-Burns Act in 1947 raised gasoline taxes that funded a massive program of freeway construction. Unlike states where tolls or bonds funded highway construction, California's gasoline taxes were earmarked for building the system. Warren's support for the bill was crucial because his status as a popular governor strengthened his views, in contrast with opposition from trucking, oil, and gas lobbyists. The Collier-Burns Act helped influence passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, setting a pattern for national highway construction. In the mid-1940s, Warren sought to implement a state universal health care, but he was unable to pass his plan due to opposition from the medical and business communities. In 1945, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco while Warren was the governor of California. He played an important role in the United Nations Conference on International Organization from April 25 to June 26, 1945, which resulted in the United Nations Charter.

Warren also pursued social legislation. He built up the state's higher education system based on the University of California and its vast network of small universities and community colleges. After federal courts declared the segregation of Mexican schoolchildren illegal in Mendez v. Westminster (1947), Governor Warren signed legislation ending the segregation of American Indians and Asians. He sought the creation of a commission to study employment discrimination, but his plan was blocked by Republicans in the state legislature. Governor Warren stopped enforcing California's anti-miscegenation law after it was declared unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp (1948). He also improved the hospital and prison systems. These reforms provided new services to a fast-growing population; the 1950 Census showed that California's population had grown by over 50% over the previous ten years.

Re-election campaigns

By 1946, California's economy was booming, Warren was widely popular, and he enjoyed excellent relations with the state's top Democratic officeholder, Attorney General Robert W. Kenny. At the urging of state party leaders, Kenny agreed to run against Warren in the 1946 gubernatorial election, but Kenny was reluctant to criticize his opponent and was distracted by his role in the Nuremberg trials. As in 1942, Warren refused to endorse candidates for other offices, and he sought to portray himself as an effective, nonpartisan governor. Warren easily won the Republican primary for governor and, in a much closer vote, defeated Kenny in the Democratic primary. After winning both primaries, Warren endorsed Republican William Knowland's U.S. Senate candidacy and Goodwin Knight's candidacy for lieutenant governor. Warren won the general election by an overwhelming margin, becoming the first Governor of California since Hiram Johnson in 1914 to win a second term.

Though he considered retiring after two terms, Warren ultimately chose to seek re-election in 1950, partly to prevent Knight from succeeding him. He easily won the Republican primary, but was defeated in the Democratic primary by James Roosevelt. Warren consistently led Roosevelt in general election polls and won re-election in a landslide, taking 65 percent of the vote. He was the first Governor of California elected to three consecutive terms. During the 1950 campaign, Warren refused to formally endorse Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee for the Senate. Warren disliked what he saw as Nixon's ruthless approach to politics and was wary of having a conservative rival for leadership of the state party. Despite Warren's refusal to campaign for him, Nixon defeated Democratic nominee Helen Gahagan Douglas by a decisive margin.

National politics, 1942–1952

After his election as governor, Warren emerged as a potential candidate for president or vice president in the 1944 election. Seeking primarily to ensure his status as the most prominent Republican in California, he ran as a favorite son candidate in the 1944 Republican primaries. Warren won the California primary with no opposition, but Thomas Dewey clinched the party's presidential nomination by the time of the 1944 Republican National Convention. Warren delivered the keynote address of the convention, in which he called for a more liberal Republican Party. Dewey asked Warren to serve as his running mate, but Warren was uninterested in the vice presidency and correctly believed that Dewey would be defeated by President Roosevelt in the 1944 election.

After his 1946 re-election victory, Warren began planning a run for president in the 1948 election. The two front-runners for the nomination were Dewey and Robert Taft, but Warren, Harold Stassen, Arthur Vandenberg, and General Douglas MacArthur each had significant support. Prior to the 1948 Republican National Convention, Warren attempted to position himself as a dark horse candidate who might emerge as a compromise nominee. However, Dewey won the nomination on the third ballot of the convention. Dewey once again asked Warren to serve as his running mate, and this time Warren agreed. Far ahead in the polls against President Harry S. Truman, the Democratic nominee, Dewey ran a cautious campaign that largely focused on platitudes rather than issues. Warren campaigned across the country on behalf of the ticket, but was frustrated by his inability to support specific policies. To the surprise of many observers, Truman won the election, and this became the only election Warren ever lost.

After his 1950 re-election, Warren decided that he would seek the Republican nomination in the 1952 presidential election, and he announced his candidacy in November 1951. Taft also sought the nomination, but Dewey declined to make a third run for president. Dewey and his supporters instead conducted a long campaign to draft General Dwight D. Eisenhower as the Republican presidential nominee. Warren ran in three Republican presidential primaries, but won just a handful of delegates outside of his home state. In the California primary, he defeated a challenge from Thomas H. Werdel, whose conservative backers alleged that Warren had "abandoned Republicanism and embraced the objectives of the New Deal." After Eisenhower entered the race, Warren realized that his only hope of nomination was to emerge as a compromise nominee at the 1952 Republican National Convention after a deadlock between supporters of Eisenhower and Taft.

After the primaries, Warren had the support of 80 delegates, while Eisenhower and Taft each had about 450 delegates. Though the California delegation was pledged to support Warren, many of the delegates personally favored Eisenhower or Taft. Unknown to Warren, Eisenhower supporters had promised Richard Nixon the vice presidency if he could swing the California delegation to Eisenhower. By the time of the convention, Nixon and his supporters had convinced most California delegates to switch their votes to Eisenhower after the first presidential ballot. Eisenhower won 595 votes on the first presidential ballot of the convention, just 9 short of the majority. Before the official end of the first ballot, several states shifted their votes to Eisenhower, giving him the nomination. Warren's decision to support a convention rule that unseated several contested delegations was critical to Eisenhower's victory; Eisenhower himself said that "if anyone ever clinched the nomination for me, it was Earl Warren." Nixon was named as Eisenhower's running mate, and Warren campaigned on behalf of the Republican ticket in fourteen different states. Ultimately, Eisenhower defeated Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson II, taking 55 percent of the national popular vote. Nixon resigned from the Senate to become vice president, and Warren appointed Thomas Kuchel to the Senate seat vacated by Nixon.

Chief Justice of the United States

Chief Justice Earl Warren

Appointment

After the 1952 election, President-elect Eisenhower promised that he would appoint Warren to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. Warren turned down the position of Secretary of the Interior in the new administration, but in August 1953 he agreed to serve as the Solicitor General. In September 1953, before Warren's nomination as solicitor general was announced, Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson died. To fill the critical position of chief justice, Eisenhower first offered the position of chief justice to Thomas E. Dewey, but Dewey declined the offer. He then considered either elevating a sitting Supreme Court justice or appointing another individual with judicial experience but ultimately chose to honor his promise to appoint Warren to the first Supreme Court vacancy. Explaining Warren's qualifications for the Court, Eisenhower wrote to his brother, "Warren has had seventeen years of practice in public law, during which his record was one of remarkable accomplishment and success.... He has been very definitely a liberal-conservative; he represents the kind of political, economic, and social thinking that I believe we need on the Supreme Court."

Warren received a recess appointment in October 1953. In the winter of 1953–1954, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported him favorably by a 12–3 majority, with three southerners in James Eastland, Olin D. Johnston and Harley M. Kilgore reporting negatively. The Senate would then confirm Warren's appointment by acclamation in March 1954; unlike the future appointments of John Marshall Harlan II and Potter Stewart (who ironically would prove the most conservative members of the Warren Court) southern senators made no effort to block Warren. As of 2021, Warren is the most recent chief justice to have held statewide elected office at any point in his career and the most recent serving politician to be appointed Chief Justice. Warren was also the first Scandinavian American to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Leadership and philosophy

The Warren Court (1953–1954)

When Warren was appointed, all of the other Supreme Court justices had been appointed by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman, and most were committed New Deal liberal Democrats. Nonetheless, they disagreed about the role that courts should play. Felix Frankfurter led a faction that insisted upon judicial self-restraint and deference to the policymaking prerogatives of the White House and Congress. Hugo Black and William O. Douglas led the opposing faction by agreeing the Court should defer to Congress in matters of economic policy but favored a more activist role for the courts in matters related to individual liberties. Warren's belief that the judiciary must seek to do justice placed him with the Black and Douglas faction. William J. Brennan Jr. became the intellectual leader of the activist faction after he was appointed to the court by Eisenhower in 1956 and complemented Warren's political skills by the strong legal skills that Warren lacked.

As chief justice, Warren's most important prerogative was the power to assign opinions if he was in the majority. That power had a subtle but important role in shaping the Court's majority opinions, since different justices would write different opinions. Warren initially asked the senior associate justice, Hugo Black, to preside over conferences until he became accustomed to the processes of the Court. However, Warren learned quickly and soon was in fact, as well as in name, the Court's chief justice. Warren's strength lay in his public gravitas, his leadership skills, and his firm belief that the Constitution guaranteed natural rights and that the Court had a unique role in protecting those rights. His arguments did not dominate judicial conferences, but Warren excelled at putting together coalitions and cajoling his colleagues in informal meetings.

Warren saw the US Constitution as the embodiment of American values, and he cared deeply about the ethical implications of the Court's rulings. According to Justice Potter Stewart, Warren's philosophical foundations were the "eternal, rather bromidic, platitudes in which he sincerely believed" and "Warren's great strength was his simple belief in the things we now laugh at: motherhood, marriage, family, flag, and the like." The constitutional historian Melvin I. Urofsky concludes that "scholars agree that as a judge, Warren does not rank with Louis Brandeis, Black, or Brennan in terms of jurisprudence. His opinions were not always clearly written, and his legal logic was often muddled." Other scholars have also reached this conclusion.

1950s

Brown v. Board of Education

Soon after joining the Court, Warren presided over the case of Brown v. Board of Education, which arose from the NAACP's legal challenge against Jim Crow laws. The Southern United States had implemented Jim Crow laws in aftermath of the Reconstruction Era to disenfranchise African Americans and segregate public schools and other institutions. In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court had held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit segregation in public institutions if the institutions were "separate but equal." In the decades after Plessy, the NAACP had won several incremental victories, but 17 states required the segregation of public schools by 1954. In 1951, the Vinson Court had begun hearing the NAACP's legal challenge to segregated school systems but had not rendered a decision when Warren took office.

By the early 1950s, Warren had become personally convinced that segregation was morally wrong and legally indefensible. Warren sought not only to overturn Plessy but also to have a unanimous verdict. Warren, Black, Douglas, Burton, and Minton supported overturning the precedent, but for different reasons, Robert H. Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark, and Stanley Forman Reed were reluctant to overturn Plessy. Nonetheless, Warren won over Jackson, Frankfurter, and Clark, in part by allowing states and federal courts the flexibility to pursue desegregation of schools at different speeds. Warren extensively courted the last holdout, Reed, who finally agreed to join a unanimous verdict because he feared that a dissent would encourage resistance to the Court's holding. After the Supreme Court formally voted to hold that the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional, Warren drafted an eight-page outline from which his law clerks drafted an opinion, and the Court handed down its decision in May 1954. In the Deep South at the time, people could view signs claiming "Impeach Earl Warren."

Other decisions and events

In arranging a unanimous decision in Brown, Warren fully established himself as the leader of the Court. He also remained a nationally prominent figure. After a 1955 Gallup poll found that a plurality of Republican respondents favored Warren as the successor to Eisenhower, Warren publicly announced that he would not resign from the Court under any circumstance. Eisenhower seriously considered retiring after one term and encouraging Warren to run in the 1956 presidential election but ultimately chose to run after he had received a positive medical report after his heart attack. Despite that brief possibility, a split developed between Eisenhower and Warren, and some writers believe that Eisenhower once remarked that his appointment was "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made."

Meanwhile, many Southern politicians expressed outrage at the Court's decisions and promised to resist any federal attempt to force desegregation, a strategy known as massive resistance. Although Brown did not mandate immediate school desegregation or bar other "separate but equal" institutions, most observers recognized that the decision marked the beginning of the end for the Jim Crow system. Throughout his years as chief justice, Warren succeeded in keeping decisions concerning segregation unanimous. Brown applied only to schools, but soon, the Court enlarged the concept to other state actions by striking down racial classification in many areas. Warren compromised by agreeing to Frankfurter's demand for the Court to go slowly in implementing desegregation. Warren used Frankfurter's suggestion for a 1955 decision (Brown II) to include the phrase "all deliberate speed." In 1956, after the Montgomery bus boycott, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision that segregated buses are unconstitutional. Two years later, Warren assigned Brennan to write the Court's opinion in Cooper v. Aaron. Brennan held that state officials were legally bound to enforce the Court's desegregation ruling in Brown.

In the 1956 term, the Warren Court received condemnation from right-wingers such as US Senator Joseph McCarthy by handing down a series of decisions, including Yates v. United States, which struck down laws designed to suppress communists and later led to the decline of McCarthyism. The Warren Court's decisions on those cases represented a major shift from the Vinson Court, which had generally upheld such laws during the Second Red Scare. That same year, Warren was elected to the American Philosophical Society. In 1957, he was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

1960s

President Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Nina Elisabeth Meyers (Warren's wife), November 1963

After the Republican Party nominated Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election, Warren privately supported the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy. They became personally close after Kennedy was inaugurated. Warren later wrote that "no American during my long life ever set his sights higher for a better America or centered his attacks more accurately on the evils and shortcomings of our society than did [Kennedy]." In 1962, Frankfurter retired and was replaced by Kennedy appointee Arthur Goldberg, which gave the liberal bloc a majority on the Court. Goldberg left the Court in 1965 but was replaced by Abe Fortas, who largely shared Goldberg's judicial philosophy. With the liberal bloc firmly in control, the Warren Court handed down a series of momentous rulings in the 1960s.

Bill of Rights

The 1960s marked a major shift in constitutional interpretation, as the Warren Court continued the process of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights in which the provisions of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution were applied to the states. Warren saw the Bill of Rights as a codification of "the natural rights of man" against the government and believed that incorporation would bring the law "into harmony with moral principles." When Warren took office, most of the provisions of the First Amendment already applied to the states, but the vast majority of the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The Warren Court saw the incorporation of the remaining provisions of the First Amendment as well as all or part of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. The Warren Court also handed down numerous other important decisions regarding the Bill of Rights, especially in the field of criminal procedure.

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court reversed a libel conviction of the publisher of the New York Times. In the majority opinion, Brennan articulated the actual malice standard for libel against public officials, which has become an enduring part of constitutional law. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court reversed the suspension of an eighth-grade student who wore a black armband in protest of the Vietnam War. Fortas's majority opinion noted that students did not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The Court's holding in United States v. Seeger expanded those who could be classified as conscientious objectors under the Selective Service System by allowing nonreligious individuals with ethical objections to claim conscientious objector status. Another case, United States v. O'Brien, saw the Court uphold a prohibition against burning draft-cards. Warren dissented in Street v. New York in which the Court struck down a state law that prohibited the desecration of the American flag. When his law clerks asked why he dissented in the case, Warren stated, "Boys, it's the American flag. I'm just not going to vote in favor of burning the American flag." In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court held that governments cannot punish speech unless it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

An "Impeach Earl Warren sign", posted in San Francisco in October 1958

In 1962, Engel v. Vitale held that the Establishment Clause prohibits mandatory prayer in public school. The ruling sparked a strong backlash from many political and religious leaders, some of whom called for the impeachment of Warren. Warren became a favored target of right-wing groups, such as the John Birch Society, as well as the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater. Engel, the criminal procedure cases, and the persistent criticism of conservative politicians like Goldwater and Nixon contributed to a decline in the Court's popularity in the mid- and the late 1960s. Griswold v. Connecticut had the Court strike down a state law designed to restrict access to contraception, and it established a constitutional right to privacy. Griswold later provided an important precedent for the case of Roe v. Wade, which disallowed many laws designed to restrict access to abortion.

Criminal procedure

In the early 1960s, the Court increasingly turned its attention to criminal procedure, which had traditionally been primarily a domain of the states. In Elkins v. United States (1960), Warren joined with the majority in striking down the "Silver Platter Doctrine," a loophole to the exclusionary rule that had allowed federal officials to use evidence that had been illegally gathered by state officials. The next year, in Mapp v. Ohio, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" applied to state officials. Warren wrote the majority opinion in Terry v. Ohio (1968) in which the Court established that police officers may frisk a criminal suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is committing or is about to commit a crime. In Gideon v. Wainwright (1962), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required states to furnish publicly funded attorneys to all criminal defendants accused of a felony and unable to afford counsel. Prior to Gideon, criminal defendants had been guaranteed the right to counsel only in federal trials and capital cases.

In Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal suspects the right to speak to their counsel during police interrogations. Escobedo was limited to criminal suspects who had an attorney at the time of their arrest and requested to speak with that counsel. In the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona, Warren wrote the majority opinion, which established a right to counsel for every criminal suspect and required police to give criminal suspects what became known as a "Miranda warning" in which suspects are notified of their right to an attorney and their right to silence. Warren incorporated some suggestions from Brennan, but his holding in Miranda was most influenced by his past experiences as a district attorney. Unlike many of the other Warren Court decisions, including Mapp and Gideon, Miranda created standards that went far beyond anything that had been established by any of the states. Miranda received a strong backlash from law enforcement and political leaders. Conservatives angrily denounced what they called the "handcuffing of the police."

Reapportionment (one man, one vote)

The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.

--Chief Justice Earl Warren on the right to vote as the foundation of democracy in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

In 1959, several residents dissatisfied with Tennessee's legislative districts brought suit against the state in Baker v. Carr. Like many other states, Tennessee had state legislative districts of unequal populations, and the plaintiffs sought more equitable legislative districts. In Colegrove v. Green (1946), the Supreme Court had declined to become involved in legislative apportionment and instead left the issue as a matter for Congress and the states. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), the Court struck down a redistricting plan designed to disenfranchise African-American voters, but many of the justices were reluctant to involve themselves further in redistricting. Frankfurter insisted that the Court should avoid the "political thicket" of apportionment and warned that the Court would never be able to find a clear formula to guide lower courts. Warren helped convince Associate Justice Potter Stewart to join Brennan's majority decision in Baker v. Carr, which held that redistricting was not a political question and so federal courts had jurisdiction over the issue. The opinion did not directly require Tennessee to implement redistricting but instead left it to a federal district court to determine whether Tennessee's districts violated the Constitution. In another case, Gray v. Sanders, the Court struck down Georgia's County Unit System, which granted disproportional power to rural counties in party primaries. In a third case, Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court required states to draw congressional districts of equal population.

In Reynolds v. Sims (1963), the chief justice wrote what biographer Ed Cray terms "the most influential of the 170 majority opinions [Warren] would write." While eight of the nine justices had voted to require congressional districts of equal population in Wesberry, some of the justices were reluctant to require state legislative districts to be of equal population. Warren indicated that the Equal Protection Clause required that state legislative districts be apportioned on an equal basis: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests." His holding upheld the principle of "one man, one vote," which had previously been articulated by Douglas. After the decision, the states reapportioned their legislatures quickly and with minimal troubles. Numerous commentators have concluded reapportionment was the Warren Court's great "success story."

Civil rights

Civil rights continued to be a major issue facing the Warren Court in the 1960s. In Peterson v. Greenville (1963), Warren wrote the Court's majority opinion, which struck down local ordinances that prohibited restaurants from serving black and white individuals in the same room. Later that decade, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States. The Court held that the Commerce Clause empowered the federal government to prohibit racial segregation in public accommodations like hotels. The ruling effectively overturned the 1883 Civil Rights Cases in which the Supreme Court had held that Congress could not regulate racial discrimination by private businesses. The Court upheld another landmark civil rights act, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, by holding that it was valid under the authority provided to Congress by the Fifteenth Amendment.

In 1967, Warren wrote the majority opinion in the landmark case of Loving v. Virginia in which the Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage. Warren was particularly pleased by the ruling in Loving since he had long regretted that the Court had not taken up the similar case of Naim v. Naim in 1955. In Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966), the Court struck down poll taxes in state elections. In another case, Bond v. Floyd, the Court required the Georgia legislature to seat the newly elected legislator Julian Bond; members of the legislature had refused to seat Bond because he opposed the Vietnam War.

Warren Commission

Earl Warren presents the Commission's report to President Johnson on September 24, 1964.

Shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the newly sworn-in president, Lyndon B. Johnson, convinced Warren to serve as the head of a bipartisan commission tasked with investigating the assassination. From December 1963 to October 1964, Warren simultaneously served as chief justice of the United States and chairman of the Warren Commission.

At the start of the investigation, Warren decided to hire the commission's legal staff from outside the government to avoid any improper influence on their work.  Warren appointed Lee Rankin as general counsel and worked closely with Rankin and his assistants, Howard P. Willens and Norman Redlich, to recruit staff lawyers, supervise their investigation and publish the Commission's report. To avoid the confusion and duplication of parallel investigations, Warren convinced the Texas authorities to defer any local inquiry into the assassination.

Warren was personally involved in several aspects of the investigation.  He supervised four days of testimony by Lee Harvey Oswald's widow, Marina Oswald, and was widely criticized for telling the press that, although her testimony would be publicly disclosed, "it might not be in your lifetime." He attended the closed-door interview of Jacqueline Kennedy and insisted on participating in the deposition of Jack Ruby in Dallas, where he visited the book depository. Warren also participated in the investigation of Kennedy's medical treatment and autopsy. At Robert Kennedy's insistence, Warren handled the unwelcome task of reviewing the autopsy photos alone.  Because the photos were so gruesome, Warren decided that they should not be included in the Commission's records.

Warren closely supervised the drafting of the Commission's report. He wanted to ensure that Commission members had ample opportunity to evaluate the staff's work and to make their own judgments about important conclusions in the report. He insisted that the report should be unanimous and so he compromised on a number of issues to get all the members to sign the final version. Although a reenactment of the assassination "produced convincing evidence" supporting the single-bullet theory, the Commission decided not to take a position on the single-bullet theory. The Commission unanimously concluded that the assassination was the result of a single individual, Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone.

The Warren Commission was an unhappy experience for the chief justice. As Willens recalled, "One can't say too much about the Chief's sacrifice. The work was a drain on his physical well-being." However, Warren always believed that the Commission's primary conclusion, that Oswald acted alone, was correct. In his memoirs, Warren wrote that Oswald was incapable of being the key operative in a conspiracy, and that any high-level government conspiracy would inevitably have been discovered. Newsweek magazine quoted Warren saying that, if he handled the Oswald case as a district attorney, "I could have gotten a conviction in two days and never heard about the case again." Warren wrote that "the facts of the assassination itself are simple, so simple that many people believe it must be more complicated and conspiratorial to be true." Warren told the Commission staff not to worry about conspiracy theories and other criticism of the report because “history will prove us right.”

Retirement

Chief Justice Warren swears in President Nixon on January 20, 1969.

By 1968, Warren was ready to retire from the Court. He hoped to travel the world with his wife, and he wanted to leave the bench before he suffered a mental decline, something that he perceived in both Hugo Black and William Douglas. He also feared that Nixon would win the 1968 presidential election and appoint a conservative successor if Warren left the Court later. On 13 June 1968, Warren submitted his letter of resignation to President Johnson (who made it official on 21 June), effective upon the confirmation of a successor. In an election year, confirmation of a successor was not assured; after Warren announced his retirement, about half of the Senate Republican caucus pledged to oppose any Supreme Court appointment prior to the election.

Johnson nominated Associate Justice Fortas, a personal friend and adviser to the president, as Warren's successor, and nominated federal appellate judge Homer Thornberry to succeed Fortas. Republicans and Southern Democrats joined to scuttle Fortas's nomination. Their opposition centered on criticism of the Warren Court, including many decisions that had been handed down before Fortas joined the Court, as well as ethical concerns related to Fortas's paid speeches and closeness with Johnson. Though the majority of the Senate may have favored the confirmation of Fortas, opponents conducted a filibuster, which blocked the Senate from voting on the nomination, and Johnson withdrew the nomination. In early 1969, Warren learned that Fortas had made a secret lifetime contract for $20,000 a year to provide private legal advice to Louis Wolfson, a friend and financier in deep legal trouble. Warren immediately asked Fortas to resign, which he did after some consideration.

Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in the 1968 presidential election and took office in January 1969. Though reluctant to be succeeded by a Nixon appointee, Warren declined to withdraw his letter of resignation. He believed that withdrawing the letter would be "a crass admission that he was resigning for political reasons." Nixon and Warren jointly agreed that Warren would retire in June 1969 to ensure that the Court would have a chief justice throughout the 1968 term and to allow Nixon to focus on other matters in the first months of his presidency. Nixon did not solicit Warren's opinion regarding the next chief justice and ultimately appointed the conservative federal appellate judge Warren E. Burger. Warren later regretted his decision to retire and reflected, "If I had ever known what was going to happen to this country and this Court, I never would have resigned. They would have had to carry me out of there on a plank." In addition, he later remarked on his retirement and on the Warren Court, "I would like the Court to be remembered as the people's court."

Final years and death

Grave at Arlington National Cemetery

After stepping down from the Court, Warren began working on his memoirs and took numerous speaking engagements. He also advocated for an end to the Vietnam War and the elimination of poverty. He avoided publicly criticizing the Burger Court, but was privately distressed by the Court's increasingly conservative holdings. He closely followed investigations into the Watergate scandal, a major political scandal that stemmed from a break-in of the Democratic National Committee's headquarters and the Nixon administration's subsequent attempts to cover up that break-in. Warren continued to hold Nixon in low regard, privately stating that Nixon was "perhaps the most despicable president that this country has ever had."

Five years into retirement, Warren died due to cardiac arrest at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C., at 8:10 p.m. on July 9, 1974, at the age of 83. He had been hospitalized since July 2 due to congestive heart failure and coronary insufficiency. On that same day, he was visited by Justices Brennan and Douglas, until 5:30 p.m. Warren could not resist asking his friends whether the Court would order President Nixon to release the sixty-four tapes demanded by the Watergate investigation. Both justices assured him that the court had voted unanimously in United States v. Nixon for the release of the tapes. Relieved, Warren died just a few hours later, safe in the knowledge that the Court he had so loved would force justice on the man who had been his most bitter foe.

Warren had his wife and one of his daughters, Nina Elizabeth Brien, at his bedside when he died. After he lay in repose in the Great Hall of the United States Supreme Court Building, his funeral was held at Washington National Cathedral, and he was interred at Arlington National Cemetery.

Legacy

Historical reputation

Warren bust, U.S. Supreme Court

Warren is generally considered to be one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court justices, as well as political leaders in the history of the United States. The Warren Court has been recognized by many to have created a liberal "Constitutional Revolution", which embodied a deep belief in equal justice, freedom, democracy, and human rights. In July 1974, after Warren died, the Los Angeles Times commented that "Mr. Warren ranked with John Marshall and Roger Taney as one of the three most important chief justices in the nation's history." In December 2006, The Atlantic cited Earl Warren as the 29th most influential person in the history of the United States and the second most influential Chief Justice, after John Marshall. In September 2018, The Economist named Warren as "the 20th century's most consequential American jurist" and one of "the 20th century's greatest liberal jurists".

President Harry S. Truman wrote in his tribute to Warren, which appeared in the California Law Review in 1970, "[t]he Warren record as Chief Justice has stamped him in the annals of history as the man who read and interpreted the Constitution in relation to its ultimate intent. He sensed the call of the times-and he rose to the call." Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas wrote, in the same article, "in my view [Warren] will rank with Marshall and Hughes in the broad sweep of United States history". According to biographer Ed Cray, Warren was "second in greatness only to John Marshall himself in the eyes of most impartial students of the Court as well as the Court's critics." Pulitzer Prize winner Anthony Lewis described Warren as "the closest thing the United States has had to a Platonic Guardian". In 1958, Martin Luther King Jr. sent one copy of his newly published book, Stride Toward Freedom, to Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing on the first free end page: "To: Justice Earl Warren. In appreciation for your genuine good-will, your great humanitarian concern, and your unswerving devotion to the sublime principles of our American democracy. With warm Regards, Martin L. King Jr." The book remained with Warren's family until 2015, when it was auctioned online for US$49,335 (including the buyer's premium).

Warren's critics found him a boring person. Dennis J. Hutchinson wrote: "Although Warren was an important and courageous figure and although he inspired passionate devotion among his followers...he was a dull man and a dull judge." Conservatives attacked the Warren Court's rulings as inappropriate and have called for courts to be deferential to the elected political branches. In his 1977 book Government by Judiciary, originalist and legal scholar Raoul Berger accuses the Warren Court of overstepping its authority by interpreting the 14th Amendment in a way contrary to the original intent of its draftsmen and framers in order to achieve results that it found desirable as a matter of public policy.

Overall, law professor Justin Driver divides interpretations of the Warren Court into three main groups: conservatives such as Robert Bork who attack the Court as "a legislator of policy...that was not theirs to make", liberals such as Morton Horwitz who strongly approve of the Court, and liberals such as Cass Sunstein who largely approve of the Court's overall legacy but believe that it went too far in making policy in some cases. Driver offers a fourth view, arguing that the Warren Court took overly conservative stances in such cases as Powell v. Texas and Hoyt v. Florida. As for the legacy of the Warren Court, Chief Justice Burger, who succeeded Earl Warren in 1969, proved to be quite ineffective at consolidating conservative control over the Court, so the Warren Court legacy continued in many respects until about 1986, when William Rehnquist became chief justice and took firmer control of the agenda. Even the more conservative Rehnquist Court refrained from expressly overturning major Warren Court cases such as Miranda, Gideon, Brown v. Board of Education, and Reynolds v. Sims. On occasion, the Rehnquist Court expanded Warren Court precedents, such as in Bush v. Gore, where the Rehnquist Court applied the principles of 1960s voting rights cases to invalidate Florida's recount in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

Memorials and honors

Earl Warren Hall, University of California, Berkeley
Earl Warren Building, headquarters of California Supreme Court (San Francisco)

Earl Warren was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously in 1981. He was also honored by the United States Postal Service with a 29¢ Great Americans series postage stamp. In December 2007, Warren was inducted into the California Hall of Fame. An extensive collection of Warren's papers, including case files from his Supreme Court service, is located at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Most of the collection is open for research.

On the campus of the University of California, Berkeley, Warren's alma mater, "Earl Warren Hall" is named after him. In addition, the UC Berkeley School of Law has established "The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity", or "Warren Institute" for short, in memory of Earl Warren, while the "Warren Room" inside the Law Building was also named in his honor.

In 2016 the United States Navy named the support ship USNS Earl Warren in his honour.

A number of governmental and educational institutions have been named for Warren:

Slavery in Brazil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Slavery in Brazil by Jean-Baptiste Debret (1834–1839). Two enslaved people enduring brutal punishment in 19th-century Brazil.
Passport granted to the slave Manoel by Angelo Pires Ramos, chief of police in the province of Sergipe, on 21 December 1876, authorising him to travel to Bahia and Rio de Janeiro in order to be sold.

Slavery in Brazil began long before the first Portuguese settlement. Slavery was established in 1516, with members of one tribe enslaving captured members of another. Later, colonists were heavily dependent on indigenous labor during the initial phases of settlement to maintain the subsistence economy, and natives were often captured by expeditions of bandeirantes (derived from the word for "flags", from the flag of Portugal they carried in a symbolic claiming of new lands for the country). The importation of African slaves began midway through the 16th century, but the enslavement of indigenous peoples continued well into the 17th and 18th centuries.

During the Atlantic slave trade era, Brazil imported more enslaved Africans than any other country in the world. Brazil's foundation was built on the exploitation and enslavement of indigenous peoples and Africans. Out of the 12 million Africans who were forcibly brought to the New World, approximately 5.5 million were brought to Brazil between 1540 and the 1860s. The mass enslavement of Africans played a pivotal role in the country's economy and was responsible for the production of vast amounts of wealth. The inhumane treatment and forced labor of enslaved Africans remains a significant part of Brazil's history and its ongoing struggle with systemic racism. Until the early 1850s, most enslaved African people who arrived on Brazilian shores were forced to embark at West Central African ports, especially in Luanda (present-day Angola).

Slave labor was the driving force behind the growth of the sugar economy in Brazil, and sugar was the primary export of the colony from 1600 to 1650. Gold and diamond deposits were discovered in Brazil in 1690, which sparked an increase in the importation of enslaved African people to power this newly profitable mining. Transportation systems were developed for the mining infrastructure, and population boomed from immigrants seeking to take part in gold and diamond mining.

Demand for enslaved Africans did not wane after the decline of the mining industry in the second half of the 18th century. Cattle ranching and foodstuff production proliferated after the population growth, both of which relied heavily on slave labor. 1.7 million slaves were imported to Brazil from Africa from 1700 to 1800, and the rise of coffee in the 1830s further expanded the Atlantic slave trade. 

History

Slavery in Medieval Portugal

The Portuguese became involved with the African slave trade first during the Reconquista ("reconquest") of the Iberian Peninsula, mainly through the mediation of the Alfaqueque: the person tasked with the rescue of Portuguese captives, slaves and prisoners of war; and then later in 1441, long before the colonization of Brazil, but now as slave traders. Slaves exported from Africa during this initial period of the Portuguese slave trade primarily came from Mauritania, and later the Upper Guinea coast. Scholars estimate that as many as 156,000 slaves were exported from 1441 to 1521 to Iberia and the Atlantic islands from the African coast. The trade made the shift from Europe to the Americas as a primary destination for slaves around 1518. Prior to this time, slaves were required to pass through Portugal to be taxed before making their way to the America.

Slavery begins in Brazil

Indian enslavement before European arrival

Engenho in the Captaincy of Pernambuco, the largest and richest sugar-producing area in the world during Colonial Brazil

Long before Europeans came to Brazil and began colonization, Indigenous groups such as the Papanases, the Guaianases, the Tupinambás, and the Cadiueus enslaved captured members of other tribes. The captured lived and worked with their new communities as trophies to the tribe's martial prowess. Some slaves would eventually escape but could never re-attain their previous status in their own tribe because of the strong social stigma against slavery and rival tribes. During their time in the new tribe, enslaved indigenous would even marry as a sign of acceptance and servitude. Those enslaved by cannibal tribes were often killed and eaten.

Such reported actions of cannibalism and intertribal ransom were used to justify the enslavement of Native Americans throughout the colonial period. The Portuguese were seen as fighting a just war when enslaving indigenous populations, supposedly rescuing them from their own cruelty. This focus on pre-colonial slavery has been criticized as it flies in the face of the reality that Portuguese enslavement of Amerindians (and later Africans) was practiced at a much larger scale than prior local enslavement practices. 

Religious leaders at the time also pushed back against this narrative. In 1653, Padre Antônio Vieira delivered a sermon in the city of São Luís de Maranhão in which he maintained that the forced enslavement of natives was a sin, calling out his listeners for thinking that the capture of Indians was justified and "giving the pious name of rescue to a sale so forced and violent."

Indigenous enslavement after European arrival

The Portuguese first traveled to Brazil in 1500 under the expedition of Pedro Álvares Cabral, though the first Portuguese settlement was not established until 1516.

Soon after the arrival of the Portuguese, it became clear a commercial colonial undertaking would be difficult on such a vast continent. Indigenous slave labor was quickly turned to for agricultural workforce needs, particularly due to the labor demands of the expanding sugar industry. Due to this pressure, slaving expeditions for Native Americans became common, despite opposition from the Jesuits who had their own ways of controlling native populations through institutions like adeias, or villages where they concentrated Indian populations for ease of conversion. As the population of coastal Native Americans dwindled due to harsh conditions, warfare, and disease, slave traders increasingly moved further inland in bandeiras, or formal slaving expeditions.

These expeditions were composed of bandeirantes, adventurers who penetrated steadily westward in their search for Indian slaves. Bandeirantes came from a wide spectrum of backgrounds, including plantation owners, traders, and members of the military, as well as people of mixed ancestry and previously captured Indian slaves. Bandeirantes frequently targeted Jesuit missions, capturing thousands of natives from them in the early 1600s. Conflict between settlers who wanted to enslave Indians and Jesuits who sought to protect them was a common pressure throughout the era, particularly as disease reduced the Indian populations. In 1661, for example, Padre Antônio Vieira's attempts to protect native populations led to an uprising and the temporary expulsion of the Jesuits in Maranhão and Pará.

Beyond the capture of new slaves and recapture of runaways, bandeiras could also act as large quasi-military forces tasked with exterminating native populations who refused to be subjected to rule by the Portuguese. They also were always on the lookout for precious metals like gold and silver. As evident through an account of one of Inácio Correia Pamplona's expeditions, bandeirantes liked to think of themselves as brave civilizers who tamed the wildness of frontier by exterminating native populations and providing land for settlers. They could be compensated heavily by the crown for their efforts; Pamplona was, for example, rewarded with land grants.

In 1629, Antônio Raposo Tavares led a bandeira, composed of 2,000 allied natives, 900 mamelucos, and 69 whites, to find precious metals and stones and to capture Indians for slavery. This expedition alone was responsible for the enslavement of over 60,000 indigenous people.

As time went on though, it became increasingly clear that indigenous slavery alone would not meet the needs of sugar plantation labor demands. For one thing, life expectancy for Native American slaves was very low. Overwork and disease decimated native populations. Furthermore, Native Americans were familiar with the land, meaning they had the incentive and ability to escape from their slave owners. For these reasons, starting in the 1570s, African slaves became the labor force of choice on the sugar plantations. Indian slavery did continue in Brazil's frontiers until well into the 18th century, but on a smaller scale than African plantation slavery.

Enslavement of Africans

In the first 250 years after the colonization of the land, roughly 70% of all immigrants to the colony were enslaved people. Indigenous slaves remained much cheaper during this time than their African counterparts, though they did suffer high death rates from European diseases. Although the average African slave lived to only be twenty-three years old because of terrible work conditions, this was still about four years longer than Indigenous slaves, which contributed to the high price of African slaves.

African slaves were also more desirable due to their experience working in sugar plantations. In a particular mill in São Vicente in the 1540s, for example, African slaves were said to have held all the most skilled positions including the crucial role of sugar master, even though they were vastly outnumbered by native slaves at the time. It is impossible to pinpoint when the first African slaves arrived in Brazil but estimates range anywhere in the 1530s. Regardless, African slavery was established at least by 1549, when the first governor of Brazil, Tome de Sousa, arrived with slaves sent from the king himself.

Enslavement of other groups

Recife was the first slave port in the Americas.

Slavery was not only endured by native Indians or blacks. As the distinction between prisoners of war and slaves was blurred, the enslavement, although at a far lesser scale, of captured Europeans also took place. The Dutch were reported to have sold Portuguese, captured in Brazil, as slaves, and of using African slaves in Dutch Brazil There are also reports of Brazilians enslaved by Barbary pirates while crossing the ocean.

Domingos Jorge Velho, a notable bandeirante
Slave sale receipt, 1848. National Archives of Brazil

In the subsequent centuries, many freed slaves and descendants of slaves became slave owners. Eduardo França Paiva estimated that about one-third of slave owners were either freed slaves or descendants of slaves.

Confrarias and compadrio

The Confrarias, religious brotherhoods that included slaves, both native (Indian) and African, and non-slaves, were frequently a doorway to freedom, as was the "compadrio", co-godparenthood, a part of the kinship network.

Economic changes in the 17th century

Brazil was the world's leading sugar exporter during the 17th century. From 1600 to 1650, sugar accounted for 95 percent of Brazil's exports, and slave labor was relied heavily upon to provide the workforce to maintain these export earnings. It is estimated that 560,000 Central African slaves arrived in Brazil during the 17th century in addition to the indigenous slave labor that was provided by the bandeiras.

The appearance of slavery in Brazil dramatically changed with the discovery of gold and diamond deposits in the mountains of Minas Gerais in the 1690s. Slaves started being imported from Central Africa and the Mina coast to mining camps in enormous numbers. Over the next century the population boomed from immigration and Rio de Janeiro exploded as a global export center. Urban slavery in new city centers like Rio, Recife and Salvador also heightened demand for slaves. Transportation systems for moving wealth were developed, and cattle ranching and foodstuff production expanded after the decline of the mining industries in the second half of the 18th century. Between 1700 and 1800, 1.7 million slaves were brought to Brazil from Africa to make this sweeping growth possible.

The slaves who were freed and returned to Africa, the Agudás, continued to be seen as slaves by the African indigenous population. As they had left Africa as slaves, when they returned although now as free people, they were not accepted in the local society who saw them as slaves. In Africa they also took part in the slave trade now as slave merchants.

Resistance

There were relatively few large revolts in Brazil for much of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, most likely because the expansive interior of the country provided disincentives for slaves to flee or revolt. In the years after the Haitian Revolution, ideals of liberty and freedom had spread to even Brazil. In Rio de Janeiro in 1805, "soldiers of African descent wore medallion portraits of the emperor Dessalines." Jean-Jacques Dessalines was one of the African leaders of the Haitian Revolution that inspired blacks throughout the world to fight for their rights as humans to live and die free. After the defeat of the French in Haiti, demand for sugar continued to increase and without the consistent production of sugar in Haiti the world turned to Brazil as the next largest exporter African slaves continued to be imported and were concentrated in the northeastern region of Bahia, a region infamous for cruel, yet prolific, sugar plantations. African slaves recently brought to Brazil were less likely to accept their condition and eventually were able to create coalitions with the purpose of overthrowing their masters. From 1807 to 1835, these groups instigated numerous slave revolts in Bahia with a violence and terror that were previously unknown.

In one notable instance, enslaved people who revolted and ran away from the Engenho Santana in Bahia sent their former plantation owner a peace proposal outlining the terms under which they would return to enslavement. The enslaved people wanted peace, not war, and asked for better working conditions and more control over their time as a condition for returning.

In general though, large scale, dramatic slave revolts were relatively uncommon in Brazil. Most resistance revolved around purposeful slowdowns in work or sabotage. In extreme cases, resistance also took the form of self-destruction via suicide or infanticide. The most common form of slave resistance, however, was escape.

The Afro-Brazilian bounty hunter looking for escaped slaves c. 1823
Malê revolt of 1835

The largest and most significant of Brazilian slave uprisings occurred in Salvador. It was called the Muslim uprising of 1835. It was planned by an African-born Muslim ethnic group of slaves, the Malês, as a revolt that would free all of the slaves in Bahia. While organized by the Malês, all of the African ethnic groups were represented in the participants, both Muslim and non-Muslim. However, Brazilian-born slaves were conspicuously absent from the rebellion. An estimated 300 rebels were arrested, of which nearly 250 were African slaves and freedmen. Brazilian-born slaves and ex-slaves represented 40% of the population of Bahia, but a total of two mulattoes and three Brazilian-born blacks were arrested during the revolt. What's more, the uprising was efficiently quelled by mulatto troops by the day after its instigation.

The fact that Africans were not joined in the 1835 revolt by mulattoes was far from unusual; in fact, no Brazilian blacks had participated in the 20 previous revolts in Bahia during that time period. Masters played a large role in creating tense relations between Africans and Afro-Brazilians, for they generally favored mulattoes and native Brazilian slaves, who consequently experienced better manumission rates. Masters were aware of the importance of tension between groups to maintain the repressive status quo, as stated by Luis dos Santos Vilhema, circa 1798, "...if African slaves are treacherous, and mulattoes are even more so; and if not for the rivalry between the former and the latter, all the political power and social order would crumble before a servile revolt..." The master class was able to put mulatto troops to use controlling slaves with little backlash, thus, the freed black and mulatto population was considered as much an enemy to slaves as the white population.

Slaves mining for diamonds in Minas Gerais (ca. 1770s)

Not only was a unified rebellion effort against the oppressive regime of slavery prevented in Bahia by the tensions between Africans and Brazilian-born African descendants, but ethnic tensions within the African-born slave population itself prevented formation of a common slave identity.

Quilombos

Escaped slaves formed maroon communities which played an important role in the histories of other countries such as Suriname, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Jamaica. In Brazil the maroon settlements were called quilombos.

Quilombos were usually located near colonial population centers or towns. Apart from hostile Native American forces that prevented former slaves from penetrating deeper into Brazil's interior, the main reason for this proximity is that quilombos were usually not economically self-sufficient; relying on raids, theft, and extortion to make ends meet. In this way quilombos' presented a real threat to the colonial social order.

Colonial officials thus saw quilombo residents as criminals and quilombos themselves as threats that must be exterminated. Raids on quilombos were brutal and frequent, in some cases even employing Native Americans as slave catchers. Bandierantes also conducted raids on fugitive slave communities. In the long run, most fugitive slave communities were eventually destroyed by colonial authorities.

The most famous of these communities was Quilombo dos Palmares. Here escaped slaves, army deserters, mulattos, and Native Americans flocked to participate in this alternative society. Quilombos reflected the people's will and soon the governing and social bodies of Palmares mirrored Central African political models. From 1605 to 1694 Palmares grew and attracted thousands from across Brazil. Though Palmares was eventually defeated and its inhabitants dispersed among the country, the formative period allowed for the continuation of African traditions and helped create a distinct African culture in Brazil.

Recent scholarship has underscored the existence of quilombos as an important form of protest against a slave society. The word "quilombo" itself means "war-camp" and was a phrase tied to effective African military communities in Angola. This etymology has led scholar Stuart Schwartz to theorize that the use of this word among fugitive slaves in Palmares was evident of a deliberate desire among fugitive slaves to form a community with effective military might.

Steps towards freedom

Brazil achieved independence from Portugal in 1822. However, the complete collapse of colonial government took place from 1821–1824. José Bonifácio de Andrade e Silva is credited as the "Father of Brazilian Independence". Around 1822, Representação to the Constituent Assembly was published arguing for an end to the slave trade and for the gradual emancipation of existing slaves.

Brazil's 1877–1878 Grande Seca (Great Drought) in the cotton-growing northeast led to major turmoil, starvation, poverty and internal migration. As wealthy plantation holders rushed to sell their slaves in the south, popular resistance and resentment grew, inspiring numerous emancipation societies. They succeeded in banning slavery altogether in the province of Ceará by 1884.

Activists
Cross-section of a slaver ship, from Notices of Brazil in 1828 and 1829 by Robert Walsh

Jean-Baptiste Debret, a French painter who was active in Brazil in the first decades of the 19th century, started out by painting portraits of members of the Brazilian Imperial Family, but soon became concerned with the slavery of both blacks and the indigenous inhabitants. During the fifteen years Debret spent in Brazil, he concentrated not only on court rituals but the everyday life of slaves as well. His paintings (one of which appears on this page) helped draw attention to the subject in both Europe and Brazil itself.

The Clapham Sect, although their religious and political influence was more active in Spanish Latin America, were a group of evangelical reformers that campaigned during much of the 19th century for the British government to use its influence and power to stop the traffic of slaves to Brazil. Besides moral qualms, the low cost of slave-produced Brazilian sugar meant that British colonies in the West Indies (which had abolished slavery) were unable to match the market prices of Brazilian sugar, and the average Briton was consuming 16 pounds (7 kg) of sugar a year by the 19th century. This combination led to diplomatic pressure from the British government for Brazil to abolish slavery, which it did by steps over three decades.

The end of slavery

Signed manuscript of the Lei Áurea abolishing slavery in Brazil "as of the date of this document"

In 1872, the population of Brazil was 10 million, and 15% were slaves. As a result of widespread manumission (easier in Brazil than in North America), by this time approximately three quarters of the blacks and mulattoes in Brazil were free. Slavery was not legally ended nationwide until 1888, when Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, promulgated the Lei Áurea ("Golden Act"). But it was already in decline by this time (since the 1880s the country began to attract European immigrant labor instead). Brazil was the last nation in the Western world to abolish slavery, and by then it had imported an estimated 4,000,000 slaves from Africa. This was 40% of all slaves shipped to the Americas.

Slave identities

In colonial Brazil, identity became a complex combination of race, skin color, and socioeconomic status because of the extensive diversity of both the slave and free population. For example, in 1872 43% of the population was free mulattoes and blacks. As shown by Family Dining, a painting created by Jean-Baptiste Debret, slaves in Brazil were often assigned new identities that reflected the status of their masters. The painting clearly depicts five slaves serving their two masters in a dining room. The slaves are depicted wearing clothing and jewelry which reflect that of their masters. For instance, the female slave on the far left side of the painting is depicted wearing a nice dress, necklaces, earrings, and a headband, demonstrating the affluence of the female slaveholder (second from the far left), who is wearing a nice dress, necklace, and headband. There are four broad categories that show the general divisions among the identities of the slave and ex-slave populations: African-born slaves, African-born ex-slaves, Brazilian-born slaves, and Brazilian-born ex-slaves.

Family dining by Jean-Baptiste Debret (1834–1839). A Brazilian family in Rio de Janeiro.

African-born slaves

This painting by Johann Moritz Rugendas depicts a scene below deck of a slave ship headed to Brazil. Rugendas was an eyewitness to the scene.

A slave's identity was stripped when sold into the slave trade, and they were assigned a new identity that was to be immediately adopted. This new identity often came in the form of a new name, consisting of a Christian or Portuguese first name randomly issued by the baptizing priest, and followed by the label of an African nation. In Brazil, these "labels" were predominantly Angola, Congo, Yoruba, Ashanti, Rebolo, Anjico, Gabon, and Mozambique. Often these names served as a way for Europeans to divide Africans in a familiar manner, disregarding ethnicity or origin. Anthropologist Jack Goody stated, "Such new names served to cut the individuals off from their kinfolk, their society, from humanity itself and at the same time emphasized their servile status".

A critical part of the initiation of any sort of collective identity for African-born slaves began with relationships formed on slave ships crossing the middle passage. Shipmates called each other malungos, and this relationship was considered as important and valuable as the relationship with their wives and children. Malungos were often ethnically related as well, for slaves shipped on the same boat were usually from similar geographical regions of Africa.

Rosa Egipcíaca was an African-born woman, who was enslaved and taken to Rio de Janeiro. After decades of enslavement, she began to have religious visions and subsequently became widely known as a religious mystic. She founded a convent for ex-prostitutes, like herself, but was ultimately investigated by the Inquisition and punished.

African-born ex-slaves

One of the most important markers of the freedom of a slave was the adoption of a last name upon being freed. These names would often be the family names of their ex-owners, either in part or in full. Since many slaves had the same or similar Christian name assigned from their baptism, it was common for a slave to be called both their Portuguese or Christian name as well as the name of their master. "Maria, for example, became known as Sr. Santana's Maria". Thus, it was mostly a matter of convenience when a slave was freed for him or her to adopt the surname of their ex-owner for assimilation into the community as a free person.

Obtaining freedom was not a guarantee of escape from poverty or from many aspects of slave life. Frequently legal freedom did not come with a change in occupation for the ex-slave. However, there was increased opportunity for both sexes to become involved in wage earning. Women ex-slaves largely dominated market places selling food and goods in urban areas like Salvador, while a significant percent of African-born men freed from slavery became employed as skilled artisans, including work as sculptors, carpenters, and jewelers.

Another area of income important to African-born ex-slaves was their own work as slavers upon being granted their freedom. In fact, purchase of slaves was a standard practice for ex-slaves who could afford it. This is evidence of the lack of a common identity among those born in Africa and shipped to Brazil, for it was much more common for ex-slaves to engage in the slave trade themselves than to take up any cause related to abolition or resistance to slavery.

Brazilian-born slaves and ex-slaves

Punishing slaves at Calabouco, in Rio de Janeiro, c. 1822

A Brazilian-born slave was born into slavery, meaning their identity was based on very different factors than those of the African-born who had once known legal freedom. Skin color was a significant factor in determining the status of African descendants born in Brazil: lighter-skinned slaves had both higher chances of manumission as well as better social mobility if they were granted freedom, making it important in the identity of both Brazilian-born slaves and ex-slaves.

The term crioulo was primarily used in the early 19th century, and meant Brazilian-born and black. Mulatto was used to refer to lighter-skinned Brazilian-born Africans, who often were children of both African and European descent. As compared to their African-born counterparts, manumission for long-term good behavior or obedience upon the owner's death was much more likely. Thus, unpaid manumission was a much more likely path to freedom for Brazilian-born slaves than for Africans, as well as manumission in general. Mulattoes also had a higher incidence of manumission, most likely because of the likelihood that they were the children of a slave and an owner.

Race relations

Francisco Paulo de Almeida (1826-1901), first and only Baron of Guaraciaba, title granted by Princess Isabel. Negro, he possessed one of the greatest fortunes of the imperial period, getting to own approximately one thousand slaves.

These color divides reinforced racial barriers between African and Brazilian slaves, and often created animosity between them. These differences were heightened after freedom was granted, for lighter skin correlated with social mobility and the greater chance an ex-slave could distance him- or herself from their former slave life. Thus, mulattoes and lighter-skinned ex-slaves had larger opportunity to improve their socioeconomic status within the confines of the colonial Brazilian social structure. As a consequence, self-segregation was common, as mulattoes preferred to separate their identity as much as possible from blacks. One way this is visible is from data on church marriages during the 19th century. Church marriage was an expensive affair, and one only the more successful ex-slaves were able to afford, and these marriages were also almost always endogamous. The fact that skin color largely dictated possible partners in marriage promoted racial distinctions as well. Interracial marriage was a rarity, and was almost always a case of a union between a white man and a mulatto woman.

Gender divides

The invisibility of women in Brazilian slavery as well as in slavery in general has only been recently recognized as an important void in history. Historian Mary Helen Washington wrote, "the life of the male slave has come to be representative even though the female experience in slavery was sometimes radically different." In Brazil, the sectors of slavery and wage-labor for ex-slaves were indeed distinct by gender.

Women

Work

House slaves c. 1820, by Jean-Baptiste Debret

Labor performed by both slave and freed women was largely divided between domestic work and the market scene, which was much larger in urban cities like Salvador, Recife and Rio de Janeiro. There was a significant difference between urban and rural slavery and that had an influence on everything from work to patterns of sociability. Since men usually outnumbered the women in the rural zones, many of the slaves were imported from Africa. In urban zones though, women were used highly in the domestic setting and even added to dowries for new brides. The domestic work women performed for owners was traditional, consisting of cooking, cleaning, laundry, fetching water, and childcare. Along with domestic work, the abolitionist legislation hinged upon enslaved women’s reproductive bodies (Roth). From this women were stripped of their newborns and if enslaved, were forced to practice wet nursing. Wet nursing is the mercenary act of using the breast milk produced by birthing a child and using it to feed another child. Their masters to perform wet-nursing in order to earn an income would rent out many enslaved women. There were also times where freed women would provide their breast milk to others for money. Roth explains of the 1871 Law of the Free Womb tended to increase the slave owners’ disregard for the free children of enslaved women. She goes on to say that instead of seeing these children as a potential investment, they were seen more as a nuisance and that they needed to be rid of. A new mother's milk was seen as a lucrative source of profit and as the final abolition was continuously being fought for in the 1880s, the price of the milk continued to increase and became more and more popular. In the 1870s, 87–90% of slave women in Rio worked as domestic servants, and an estimated 34,000 slave and free women labored as domestics. When working as a slave in the domestic setting, you were trained as cooks, household servants, washerwomen, seamstresses, and laundresses, the more skills acquired, the higher the market value of the slave. Thus, Brazilian women in urban centers often blurred the lines that separated the work and lives of the slave and the free. Many enslaved women who worked in domestics would be used as a confidant or a middle-man between elite women and the outside world. The slaves would accompany young women to visit friends and run errands for them, much like a personal assistant. These urban slaves were a capital asset to any master because by Iberian law, any child of the slave, was then a slave as well.

In urban settings, African slave markets provided an additional source of income for both slave and ex-slave women, who typically monopolized sales. This trend of the marketplace being predominantly the realm of women has its origins in African customs. Wilhelm Muller, a German minister, observed in his travels to the Gold Coast, "Apart from the peasants who bring palm-wine and sugarcane to the market everyday, there are no men who stand in public markets to trade, only women." The women sold tropical fruits and vegetables, cooked African dishes, candies, cakes, meat, and fish.

Slave owners would buy Mina and Angolan women and girls to work as cooks, household servants, and street vendors or Quitandeiras. The women who worked as quitandeiras would acquire gold through the exchange of prepared food and aguardente (also known as sugarcane rum). Slave owners would then keep a day's wage of one pataca, and the quitandeiras were then expected to buy their own food and rum, thus causing the enslaved women and their owners to become enriched. With access to gold or to gold dust, the quitandeiras were able to purchase the freedom of their children and themselves.

Prostitution was almost exclusively a trade performed by slave women, many of whom were forced into it to benefit their owners socially and financially. Prostitution was also a way that many enslaved women were able to buy their way to freedom. Municipal authorities attempted at curbing such acts by prohibiting black women, both slave and free, to be out on the street after nightfall. Much of these efforts were failed. Although many municipalities were against the exploitation of slave women in the act of prostitution, the sexual exploitation and sexual abuse that occurred under a master's roof was often ignored. Slave women were also used by freed men as concubines or common-law wives and often worked for them in addition as household labor, wet nurses, cooks, and peddlers. Black women during slavery in the Western hemisphere were often dehumanized. They were seen as a racial stain and had no claim to honor. Privileged virginity did not pertain to black women, which caused them to be used by both white and Latino males. Enslaved black women were more susceptible to being used by their masters, but all black women were vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation. The religious mystic, Rosa Egipcíaca had been forced to work as a prostitute for the enslaved male workers at a gold mine in Minas Gerais.

Enslaved women on plantations were often given the same work as men. Slaveholders often put slave women to work alongside men in the grueling atmosphere of the fields but were aware of ways to exploit them with regards to their gender as well. Choosing between the two was regularly a matter of expediency for the owners. In both small and large estates women were heavily involved in fieldwork, and the chance to be exempted in favor of domestic work was a privilege. It was not uncommon that enslaved women would often become concubines of their masters or on a more broad spectrum, any white or mulatto man. There were many cases where these sexual liaisons were used to the slave's benefit and helped improve their day-to-day life and treatment. It also led to manumission, which is the release of slavery, or freedom. Socolow also points out in The Women of Colonial Latin America that these sexual liaisons between slave and master could also be a detriment to their future. When wives found out about the affairs between their husbands and slaves, often the slaves were immediately sold. There were times, though, when the children who were suspected to be created through the affair were sold off instead. The slaves who were successful in having a relationship with their master or with any white man usually gained wealth, manumission and in some cases, a social position. Their roles in reproduction were still emphasized by owners, but often childbirth only meant that the physical demands of the field were forced to coexist with the emotional and physical pull of parenthood.

Marriage in the slave world was often difficult and forbidden in some cases because of the difficulty it brought masters who intended on selling their slaves. Once slaves were married, the ability to sell the slave became that much harder, thus causing masters to often forbid marriages amongst their enslaved peoples. Since it was often forbidden. Those couples that were together but unable to marry and living in an informal consensual union were not protected under the church's law and thus could be separated at any point if the owner wanted to sell. The few female slaves who did marry usually were owned by a person of the higher social status, or those owned by religious orders and forced to wed through those orders.

Demographically, enslaved women usually stayed within their ethnic group when deciding to marry. Urban slaves were the most likely to take action legally when it came to their ability and decision to marry. They took measures to prevent owners from forcing marriage against their wills and also would sue those who attempted to prohibit them from marrying. The rural plantations were more isolated and for that their rules differed. Masters were given more opportunity to provide pressure on their female slaves to marry men chosen for them; or from the opposite side of the spectrum, owners on rural farms would forbid the marriage of slaves to another slave from a separate plantation.

Socolow explains that marriage was very rarely a legitimate marriage. The access to slaves and sexually exploiting those slaves were plentiful and thus used greatly during this time. Interracial union was discouraged, so most sexual encounters between black women or slave women and white men were done in secrecy, yet most were engaging in the act. The relations between black women and white men were often believed to be preferred because of how often white babies were nursed by slaves and black women. This also explains why black families were centered around the woman. A mother and her children were the base of the family, regardless of the ratio of men to women, which is quite opposite of the patriarchal white and Latino society.

Status

The dual-sphere nature of women's work, in household domestic labor, and in the marketplace, allowed for both additional opportunities at financial resources as well as a larger social circle than their male counterparts. This gave women greater resources both as slaves and as ex-slaves, though their mobility was hindered by gender constraints. However, women often fared better in manumission possibilities. Among Brazilian-born adult ex-slaves in Salvador in the 18th century, 60% were women.

There are many reasons that could explain why women were disproportionately represented in manumitted Brazilian slaves. Women who worked in the home were able to form more intimate relationships with the owner and the family, increasing their chances of unpaid manumission for reasons of "good behavior" or "obedience" Additionally, male slaves were economically seen as more useful especially by landowners, making their manumission more costly to the owner and therefore for the slave himself.

Men

Work

Recently bought slaves in Brazil on their way to the farms of the landowners who bought them, c. 1830

The work of male slaves was a much more formal affair, especially in urban settings as compared to the experience of slave women. Often, male work groups were divided by ethnicity to work as porters and transporters in gangs, transporting furniture and agricultural products by water or from ships to the marketplace. It was also the role of slave men to bring new slaves from ships to auction. Men also were used as fishermen, canoeists, oarsmen, sailors, and artisans. Up to one-fourth of slaves from 1811–1888 were employed as artisans, and many were men who worked as carpenters, painters, sculptors, and jewelers.

Males also did certain kinds of domestic work in cities like Rio, Recife and Salvador, including starching, ironing, fetching water, and dumping waste. On plantations outside of urban areas however, men were primarily involved in fieldwork with women. Their roles on larger estates also included working in boiling houses and tending cattle.

Gender imbalances and family life

Given the physically demanding nature of plantation labor, landowners preferred male slaves over female slaves which, especially earlier in the history of slave trade, led to an imbalanced sex ratio that may have stunted family formation and lowered birth rates among slaves.

Gender imbalances were also a key issue in quilmbos, leading, in some cases, to the abduction of black or mulatto women by fugitive slaves. By the eighteenth century, though, birth rates among slaves became normal and marriages became more common, although the marriage rate of slaves was still lower than that of the free population. Legal marriages between slaves held some protection under Portuguese law, and it was hard for slaveowners to separate husband and wife through sale, although the same protections were not given to children.

Family life among slaves was a topic of interest for observers in the nineteenth century. These observers maintained that slaves who had strong family ties were less likely to run away as they had something to lose, so they advocated for a balanced gender ratio and protection of family life among slaves in Bahia.

Modern era

Contemporary slavery

In 1995, 288 farmworkers were freed from what was officially described as a contemporary forced labor situation. This number eventually rose to 583 in 2000. In 2001, however, the Brazilian government freed more than 1,400 slave laborers from many different forced labor institutions varying throughout the country. The majority of forced labor, whether coerced through debt, violence, or through another manner, is often unreported. The danger that these individuals face in their day-to-day life often make it extremely difficult to turn to authorities and report what is going on. A national survey conducted in 2000 by the Pastoral Land Commission, a Roman Catholic church group, estimated that there were more than 25,000 forced workers and slaves in Brazil. In 2007, in an admission to the United Nations, the Brazilian government declared that at least 25,000–40,000 Brazilians work under work conditions "analogous to slavery." The top anti-slavery official in Brasília, Brazil's capital, estimates the number of modern enslaved at 50,000.

In 2007, the Brazilian government freed more than 1,000 forced laborers from a sugar plantation. In 2008, the Brazilian government freed 4,634 slaves in 133 separate criminal cases at 255 different locations. Freed slaves received a total compensation of £2.4 million (equal to $4.8 million).

In March 2012, European consumer protection organizations published a study about slavery and cruelty to animals involved when producing leather shoes. A Danish organization was contracted to visit farms, slaughterhouses and tanneries in Brazil and India. The conditions of humans found were catastrophic, as well the treatment of the animals was found cruel. None of the 16 companies surveyed were able to track the used products down to the final producers. Timberland did not participate, but was found the winner as it showed at least some signs of transparency on its website.

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor's Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor in Brazil reported that the children that engaged in child labor were either in agriculture or domestic work."

In 2014, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs issued a List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor where Brazil was classified as one of the 74 countries still involved in child labor and forced labor practices.

A 2017 report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy suggested "thousands of workers in Brazil’s meat and poultry sectors were victims of forced labor and inhumane work conditions." As a result, the South African Poultry Association (SAPA) called for an investigation on grounds of unfair competition.

Carnaval and Ilê Aiyê

Campo Grande Circuit, on September Seven Avenue

A yearly celebration that allows insight into race relations, Carnival is a weeklong festival celebrated all around the world. In Brazil it is associated with numerous facets of Brazilian culture: soccer, samba, music, performances, and costumes. Schools are on holiday, workers have the week off, and a general sense of jubilee fills the streets, where musicians parade around to huge crowds of cheering fans.

It was during Brazil's military dictatorship, defined by many as Brazil's darkest period, when a group called Ilê Aiyê came together to protest black exclusion within the majority black state of Bahia. There had been a series of protests at the beginning of the 1970s that raised awareness for back unification but they were met with severe suppression. Prior to 1974, Afro-Bahians would leave their houses with only religious figurines to celebrate Carnival. Though under increased scrutiny attributed to the military dictatorship, Ilê Aiyê succeeded in created a black only bloco (Carnaval parade group) that manifested the ideals of the Brazilian Black Movement. Their purpose was to unite the Afro-Brazilians affected by the oppressive government and politically organize so that there could be lasting change among their community.

Ilê Aiyê's numbers have since grown into the thousands. Though the media has called it ‘racist’, to a large degree the black-only bloco has become one of the most interesting aspects of Salvador's Carnaval and is continuously accepted as a way of life. Combined with the influence of Olodum in Salvador, musical protest and representation as a product of slavery and black consciousness has slowly grown into a more powerful force. Musical representation of problems and issues have long been part of Brazil's history, and Ilê Aiyê and Olodum both produce creative ways to remain relevant and popular.

Legacy of slavery

Slavery as an institution in Brazil was unrivaled in all of the Americas. The sheer number of African slaves brought to Brazil and moved around South America greatly influenced the entirety of the Americas. Indigenous groups, Portuguese colonists, and African slaves all contributed to the melting pot that has created Brazil. The mixture of African religions that survived throughout slavery and Catholicism, Candomblé, has created some of the most interesting and diverse cultural aspects. In Bahia, statues of African gods called Orishas pay homage to the unique African presence in the nation's largest Afro-Brazilian state. Not only are these Orishas direct links to their past ancestry, but also reminders to the cultures the Brazilian people come from. Candomblé and the Orishas serve as an ever-present reminder that African slaves were brought to Brazil. Though their lives were different in Brazil, their culture has been preserved at least to some degree.

Since the 1990s, despite the increasing public attention given to slavery through national and international initiatives like UNESCO's Slave Route Project, Brazil has mounted very few initiatives commemorating and memorializing slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. However, in the last decade Brazil has begun engaging in several initiatives underscoring its slave past and the importance of African heritage. Gradually, all over the country statues celebrating Zumbi, the leader of Palmares, Brazilian long-lasting quilombo (runaway slave community) were unveiled. Capital cities like Rio de Janeiro and even Porto Alegre created permanent markers commemorating heritage sites of slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. Among the most recent and probably the most famous initiatives of this kind is the Valong Wharf slave memorial in Rio de Janeiro (the site where almost one million enslaved Africans disembarked).

Slavery and systematic inequality and disadvantage still exist within Brazil. Though much progress has been made since abolition, unequal representation in all levels of society perpetuates ongoing racial prejudice. Most obvious are the stark contrasts between white and black Brazilians in media, government, and private business. Brazil continues to grow and succeed economically, yet its poorest regions and neighborhood slums (favelas), occupied by majority Afro-Brazilians, are shunned and forgotten. Large developments within cities displace poor Afro-Brazilians and the government relocates them conveniently to the periphery of the city. It has been argued that most Afro-Brazilians live as second-class citizens, working in service industries that perpetuate their relative poverty while their white counterparts are afforded opportunities through education and work because of their skin color. Advocacy for equal rights in Brazil is hard to understand because of how mixed Brazil's population is. However, there is no doubt that the number of visible Afro-Brazilian leaders in business, politics and media is disproportionate to their white counterparts.

Rocinha Favela Brazil slums

In 2012, Brazil passed an affirmative action law in an attempt to directly fight the legacy of slavery. Through it Brazilian policy makers have forced state universities to have a certain quota of Afro-Brazilians. The percentage of Afro-Brazilians to be admitted, as high as 30% in some states, causes great social discontent that some argue furthers racial tensions. It is argued that these high quotas are needed because of the unequal opportunities available to Afro-Brazilians. In 2012 Brazil's Supreme Court unanimously held the law to be constitutional.

Politics of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...