--- title: "Slaughterhouse Cases — APUSH Definition & Exam Guide" description: "The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) gutted the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, weakening federal protection for freedpeople. Key to APUSH Topic 5.11." canonical: "https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms/slaughterhouse-cases" type: "key-term" subject: "AP US History" unit: "Unit 5" --- # Slaughterhouse Cases — APUSH Definition & Exam Guide ## Definition The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) were Supreme Court decisions that read the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that it protected almost nothing, leaving the rights of newly freed African Americans up to hostile state governments and helping doom Reconstruction. ## What It Is The Slaughterhouse Cases started as a fight that had nothing to do with race. Louisiana gave one company a [monopoly](/apush/key-terms/monopoly "fv-autolink") on slaughterhouses in New Orleans, and the butchers who got shut out sued, claiming the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause protected their right to earn a living. In 1873 the Supreme Court ruled against them, but the way it ruled is what matters for [APUSH](/apush "fv-autolink"). The Court said the Fourteenth Amendment only protects a tiny set of rights tied to *national* citizenship (like access to ports and federal protection abroad), while most everyday rights belong to *state* citizenship and stay under state control. That reading drained the amendment of most of its power right when freedpeople needed it most. The Fourteenth Amendment was written to put the federal government between African Americans and Southern state governments. After Slaughterhouse, the Privileges or Immunities Clause was basically a dead letter, so when Southern states stripped away Black rights through segregation, violence, and political tactics, the federal courts had little to say. This is exactly what the CED means in KC-5.3.II.E when it lists [Supreme Court decisions](/apush/unit-8/african-american-civil-rights-movement-1960s/study-guide/yInAfvUol9DCb9fB2Eer "fv-autolink") among the forces that progressively stripped away African American rights. ## Why It Matters This term lives in [Topic 5.11](/apush/unit-5/failures-reconstruction/study-guide/v760MdiOJXB3TCLYZBZ5 "fv-autolink"), Failure of Reconstruction, and supports learning objective APUSH 5.11.A, which asks you to explain how Reconstruction produced both continuity and change in what it meant to be American. The Slaughterhouse Cases are your best evidence that the failure of Reconstruction wasn't just about Klan violence or the [Compromise of 1877](/apush/key-terms/compromise-of-1877 "fv-autolink"). The Supreme Court itself dismantled Reconstruction by interpretation, narrowing the Fourteenth Amendment without ever repealing it. That sets up the long arc in KC-5.3.II.E that you'll trace across the whole course. The amendments stayed on the books, got hollowed out in the 1870s-1890s, then became the legal foundation for civil rights victories in the 20th century. If an essay asks you about the changing meaning of American citizenship, Slaughterhouse is the moment the definition split in two, with national citizenship meaning very little and state citizenship meaning almost everything. ## Connections ### United States v. Cruikshank (Unit 5) Cruikshank (1876) finished what Slaughterhouse started. Slaughterhouse shrank what the Fourteenth Amendment protected, and Cruikshank ruled it only restricted state governments, not private mobs. Together they left freedpeople with constitutional rights on paper and no federal enforcement in practice. Fiveable practice questions pair these two cases constantly, so learn them as a set. ### Fourteenth Amendment (Unit 5) Slaughterhouse is the first major [Supreme Court](/apush/key-terms/supreme-court "fv-autolink") interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and it's a story of an amendment being neutralized just five years after ratification. You can't explain why the amendment failed freedpeople in the 1870s without this case. ### [Plessy v. Ferguson (Unit 6)](/apush/key-terms/plessy-v-ferguson) Slaughterhouse opened the door that Plessy (1896) walked through. Once the Court established that the [federal government](/apush/key-terms/federal-government "fv-autolink") wouldn't aggressively enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, 'separate but equal' became possible. Plessy attacked the Equal Protection Clause the way Slaughterhouse attacked Privileges or Immunities. ### [Brown v. Board of Education (Unit 8)](/apush/key-terms/brown-v-board-of-education) Here's the payoff of KC-5.3.II.E. The same Fourteenth Amendment the Court gutted in 1873 became the basis for Brown (1954) and the civil rights decisions of the 20th century. Slaughterhouse is the start of a continuity-and-change arc that runs from [Unit 5](/apush/unit-5 "fv-autolink") all the way to Unit 8, which is gold for an LEQ thesis. ## On the AP Exam You'll most often see the Slaughterhouse Cases in multiple-choice questions about why Reconstruction failed, usually paired with United States v. Cruikshank. Stems ask how these decisions weakened the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of African Americans or how they shifted understandings of American citizenship during Reconstruction. The move you need to make is causal, not just descriptive. Don't just say the Court limited the amendment; explain that by narrowing federal citizenship rights, the Court handed control over civil rights back to Southern states, which then built segregation and disfranchisement. No released FRQ has used this term verbatim, but it's strong specific evidence for LEQs or DBQs on the failure of Reconstruction or on continuity and change in citizenship, especially if you connect it forward to the 20th-century revival of the Fourteenth Amendment. ## Slaughterhouse Cases vs United States v. Cruikshank Both are 1870s Supreme Court cases that weakened the Fourteenth Amendment, so they blur together. Keep them straight by what each one limited. Slaughterhouse (1873) limited *what* the amendment protects, shrinking the Privileges or Immunities Clause to a short list of national rights. Cruikshank (1876) limited *who* the amendment restrains, ruling it applies only to state action, so the federal government couldn't prosecute the private mob behind the Colfax Massacre. Slaughterhouse also began as an economic dispute between butchers, while Cruikshank arose directly from racial violence. ## Key Takeaways - The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) were the Supreme Court's first major interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and they read the Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly it became almost useless. - The case began as an economic dispute over a Louisiana slaughterhouse monopoly, but its real impact fell on newly freed African Americans who lost federal protection for their rights. - The Court split citizenship in two, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects only a few rights of national citizenship while most rights belong to state citizenship and state control. - Together with United States v. Cruikshank (1876), Slaughterhouse shows that the Supreme Court, not just Southern violence or the Compromise of 1877, dismantled Reconstruction. - Per KC-5.3.II.E, the gutted 14th and 15th Amendments survived on paper and later became the foundation for 20th-century civil rights decisions like Brown v. Board, making Slaughterhouse a perfect continuity-and-change example. ## FAQs ### What were the Slaughterhouse Cases in APUSH? They were 1873 Supreme Court decisions, arising from a Louisiana slaughterhouse monopoly, in which the Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only a narrow set of national citizenship rights. The ruling left most civil rights under state control, weakening federal protection for freedpeople during Reconstruction. ### Did the Slaughterhouse Cases overturn the Fourteenth Amendment? No. The amendment stayed fully in the Constitution. The Court instead interpreted its Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that it stopped doing meaningful work, which is why the CED says Supreme Court decisions 'progressively stripped away' African American rights rather than abolished them. ### How are the Slaughterhouse Cases different from United States v. Cruikshank? Slaughterhouse (1873) shrank what rights the Fourteenth Amendment covers, while Cruikshank (1876) ruled the amendment restricts only state governments, not private individuals like the mob behind the Colfax Massacre. Slaughterhouse started as a butchers' economic dispute; Cruikshank came directly out of racial violence. ### Were the Slaughterhouse Cases about slavery? Not directly. The plaintiffs were white New Orleans butchers fighting a state-granted monopoly. But because the Court used the case to gut the Fourteenth Amendment, the biggest losers were African Americans, who needed that amendment to shield them from hostile Southern state governments. ### Why did the Slaughterhouse Cases matter for the failure of Reconstruction? They showed the federal courts wouldn't enforce the Reconstruction amendments aggressively, so Southern states could strip Black rights through segregation, violence, and political tactics without much federal pushback. On the exam, pair Slaughterhouse with Cruikshank as evidence that the judiciary helped end Reconstruction alongside the Compromise of 1877. ## Related Study Guides - [5.11 Failure of Reconstruction](/apush/unit-5/failures-reconstruction/study-guide/v760MdiOJXB3TCLYZBZ5) ## Structured Data ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms/slaughterhouse-cases#resource","name":"Slaughterhouse Cases — APUSH Definition & Exam Guide","url":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms/slaughterhouse-cases","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms/slaughterhouse-cases#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-06-11T00:48:07.842Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"AP US History Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms/slaughterhouse-cases#term","name":"Slaughterhouse Cases","description":"The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) were Supreme Court decisions that read the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that it protected almost nothing, leaving the rights of newly freed African Americans up to hostile state governments and helping doom Reconstruction.","url":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms/slaughterhouse-cases","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"AP US History Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms"},"educationalAlignment":[{"@type":"AlignmentObject","alignmentType":"educationalSubject","educationalFramework":"AP Course and Exam Description","targetName":"APUSH Unit 5, Topic 5.11, LO 5.11.A"}]},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What were the Slaughterhouse Cases in APUSH?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"They were 1873 Supreme Court decisions, arising from a Louisiana slaughterhouse monopoly, in which the Court ruled the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only a narrow set of national citizenship rights. The ruling left most civil rights under state control, weakening federal protection for freedpeople during Reconstruction."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Did the Slaughterhouse Cases overturn the Fourteenth Amendment?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"No. The amendment stayed fully in the Constitution. The Court instead interpreted its Privileges or Immunities Clause so narrowly that it stopped doing meaningful work, which is why the CED says Supreme Court decisions 'progressively stripped away' African American rights rather than abolished them."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How are the Slaughterhouse Cases different from United States v. Cruikshank?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Slaughterhouse (1873) shrank what rights the Fourteenth Amendment covers, while Cruikshank (1876) ruled the amendment restricts only state governments, not private individuals like the mob behind the Colfax Massacre. Slaughterhouse started as a butchers' economic dispute; Cruikshank came directly out of racial violence."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Were the Slaughterhouse Cases about slavery?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Not directly. The plaintiffs were white New Orleans butchers fighting a state-granted monopoly. But because the Court used the case to gut the Fourteenth Amendment, the biggest losers were African Americans, who needed that amendment to shield them from hostile Southern state governments."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why did the Slaughterhouse Cases matter for the failure of Reconstruction?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"They showed the federal courts wouldn't enforce the Reconstruction amendments aggressively, so Southern states could strip Black rights through segregation, violence, and political tactics without much federal pushback. On the exam, pair Slaughterhouse with Cruikshank as evidence that the judiciary helped end Reconstruction alongside the Compromise of 1877."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"AP US History","item":"https://fiveable.me/apush"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/apush/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 5","item":"https://fiveable.me/apush/unit-5"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Slaughterhouse Cases"}]}]} ```