Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is an open forum for CCHS AP US History students. There will be an official posting each week for each student to respond. However, you may also post other information and questions you have concerning AP US History or CCHS.
Blog Archive
About Me
- Mrs. Vince
- This is my 7th year teaching AP US History and our third year to blog. Please put forth your best effort and hopefully it will be beneficial for everyone!!!
14 comments:
I think the Supreme Court made this case more complex and hurtful to the actual victim which was Dred. By saying that an a person was another man's property was rather a low blow and unjust. Considering how long Dred had lived there with his owner in that free state, he should have been granted his freedom instead of being treated like a piece of furniture.But he was considered property and not as a citizen, thus making the outcome what it was. This case was thought about too much when really it should have been a pretty simple freedom or no freedom.
I think that this was one of the lowest points in U.S. history. This case was unjust and unethical, how could they say that it was okay to treat a human like a cow. This decision said that eventhough Dred had lived in free territory for so long that he should continue to be under his master. They also decided due to this Court decision that all blacks would not be regonized as American citizens any longer. This decision also ended the Missiouri Compromise that seperated free states and slave states. This decision I think strongly pushed the U.S. to war making slavery issue the forfront. This case declared that no slave could sue in court therefore declaring all slaves properity in my opinionen standing behind the idea of slavery. I think this decision was unconstitutional because the slaves were humans to and that was not protecting the rights that they should have had in America.
Maynard
I believe this court case is one of the worst decisions our Supreme Court has made. It had no right to rule that a human being is not a human being just because of his skin color. The Constitution allows for freedom for all men, and this includes African Americans as well. To declare that Dred Scott is jus property went against the Constitution.
The supreme court was treating slavery in Dred Scott's case like he was living in a dry county. You can't buy it here but go ahead and do it here. I agree with Maynard, this was a very low point for american history. In todays mindset we think this should have been a clear-cut, no-nonsense case where Dred would've gone free and slavery would have ended and everyone would've had a great big group hug. But back then this just wasn't possible, no laws would protect slaves for several more years and the fact remained that we were staying down the barrel of a civil war. If rights had been given to this man then hundreds more would've followed him, only perpetuating the inevitable. While all this doesn't seem to be in Constitutional boundries the sad fact remains that it was, and would be for a little while longer.
I do think that the Supreme Court did go beyond the boundaries of the Constitution. They were ruling everything of this case based on Dred Scott's skin color...black. This was a very low point in our nation's history, ruling someone as your own property just because he was a different skin color. Scott wasn't considered free, even though he lived in a free state, because he was property of his owner, which i think is very unfair.
The Supreme Court contradicts the 3/5 compromise. The 3/5 compromise states that at least some of the slaves are considered humans and are counted in the population. The dred Scott case basically says that dred Scott is a piece of property and isn’t human. Granted it is unethical to have slaves and make them subhuman by taking away their inaliable rights. The constitution does protect property from being taken away. in that time period because a slave was looked at like we might look at a car or a computer the supreme court was simply making a judgment call on ownership and the fact that just because you moved to a different state doesn’t mean you dont still own it. So yes slavery was wrong but the Supreme Court was within their rights to protecting the slave owners right to his “property”. It fallowed the basic rights that the slave owner had. I don’t think it stepped over the line as unconstitutional legally yet because at this time the slaves themselves had no rights that the constitution would of protected.
Casey;)
I believe that he Dred Scott Case, like many others, shows a very low point in our nations history. The Supreme Court ruled that, under the constitution, Dred was viewed as a piece of property, and therefore was not considered a citizen of the United States. I find it interesting that people such as the Irish and Germans could come to America, and become a citizen with in a few years, but someone such as Dred Scott who lived in the U.S for propably his entire life could not; basically because of the color of his skin. John Lock, whom largly infulenced the Constituion and many of whom principles were included, said that all people are born with natural rights being: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, a man, a human, just because of the color of his skin was considered property. I believe that in this case, it's rulings were unconstitutional, but in their eyes it was and would be until sometime after the Civil War.
The Supreme Court was in its constitutional boundaries, but morally they went too far. When they found out he wasn't a citizen of the United States, they should've thrown the case out. They didn't though, they put in their 98 cents on the slavery issue. They should've waited for another case to come up that was legal and about the constitutionalness of slavery. However, I do agree with their ruling that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, slavery shouldn't have been banned if the states wanted it. Declaring the slaves to be property was an shoddy solution to the runaway problem, it should've been done in a way that allowed them human rights.
I agree with Maynard in that this was a very low point in our US History. The case was very unfair to Dred Scott. Since he was considered property of someone he was not given the freedom to be able become a citizen. Just becouose he was black this doesn't give the US any ablitiy at all to say that he just like everyone else can't become a citizen. Dred had been a freed man for a long time and i think that it was his right to be able to become a citizen just like everyone else. But the surpreme court choose to be very racial in their decision that he was still property and ruled very unjust and unfair to him. And so i do not think that it was within it's constutional boundaries.
Yes, I feel they did. The supreme court made the case that the declaration did say all men created equal but this did not include black men. The black men had no rights and were considered as property to the south. I fell this was very cruel and that the north should've fought for this mans freedom more than they did. The north believed he should be free and since they were living in their territory he should've been free.
I agree with everyone else when saying the Supreme Court did too much in the Dred Scott case and it was unconstitutional. African Americans at this point in history were treated as property in the South and were treated cruely in most cases. the fact that Dred was in a North state which are slave-free, he should have had freedom but that wasnt the case. He was still considered a slave, the court should have had the easy decision of declaring him free but since he was considered property this did not happen. This was a low and disappointing time in our nations history.
I agree with everyone in saying that the Suprme Court did try to hard on this case. Dred should have been set free because he was in a free state. And the people in those free states wanted all the slaves to be free, so why couldn't he have been set free. Yes he was bought as a slave, but upon moving to that said free state, he should have gained his freedom. Its not really a free state when there is a slave owned there. So saying that, was it really a free state? Did our government work so hard on trying to do so much that it crumbled in on itself? Yes.
I think the supreme court went way too far in the dread-scott case, and it was defintily not within constitiutional boundaries. There is no way to justify what the governmant did in this case. To say a living breathing person was considered property was horrible, and it also defeated the purpose of free and slave states. The consitution already said that slaves counted as 3/5 of a person when it came to population, so to say they were property went against that. This was a major low point in our counrty's history.
i agree with everyone in that the supreme court went too far with the dread scott case. it is by far one of the lowest points in american history. because it went against the crucial law that all men are created equal. and said that some people were property and therefore have no rights. i also believe that it was not in the traditional constitutional boundaries because men can not make these types of decisions as to the value of another humans worth.
Post a Comment