Category: Dred Scott Decision

Race is an aspect that impacts our lives on a daily basis, whether it be negatively or positively. This is largely due to the hierarchy of the races that exists in the United states.

In the 19th century, scientists and scholars began attempts to scientifically justify the existence of races and the inferiority of non-white races compared to their white counterparts. Dr. Samuel Morton, for example, used craniometry to provide biological evidence of the inferiority of non-whites. Through measuring the crania of different populations, he found that white people had the largest brains, blacks having the smallest, with Native-American people in-between the two (“Race”: The Evolution of a Concept-Part II). This “discovery” helped support the decision in one of this country’s most revolutionary Supreme Court cases, Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that “the Negro is an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race”.

George Gliddon, author of the 1854 book ‘Types of Mankind’, claimed that black people were closer to apes than they were to humans, and whites were at the apex of the human pyramid (“Race”: The Evolution of a Concept-Part II). The myths spread by “scholars” such as Gliddon about the so-called inferiority of black people and other non-white races were soon considered fact and accepted by most white people, providing them a sense of comfort that even the poorest, least educated of white people are at the top of the social hierarchy.

The irony of the concept of race is that although scientists and scholars have gone to great lengths to justify its existence, there have been several occasions in which society has proved that it is in fact a social construct, not only lacking in scientific backing, but also varying time and place (Race and Ethnicity: Constancy in Change, pg XII). The one-drop rule said that an individual with any trace of African ancestry was considered black, but the amount of ancestry required to be considered a black person varied between states. If there was a scientific basis for race, it would be constant regardless of location. Despite the falsehood of the concept of race, society is still ran based on it. We often perceive and treat people based on their race, which we can identify through things such as skin color, hair texture, and other phenotypical attributes. Almost two hundred years later from ‘the Types of Mankind’, we see that white people remain at the apex of this social human pyramid, with anyone who is non-white below them, black people being at the very bottom. The farther we travel up this human pyramid, the more universal acceptance we see, the fairer, less unjust treatment we see, because as we get closer to the top, we see more whiteness, whether it be in physical appearance or other possessions associated with whiteness. It is only natural for humans to want to strive for what is at the top, what is thought to be the best. The status of white people at the tip of this pyramid has established them as the standard for every aspect of society, whether it be in beauty, education, entertainment, and other aspects of everyday living. As a result, non-white individuals in the United States spend a great deal of their lives as mimic men, striving to acquire whiteness by imitating aspects of the dominant culture, in an attempt to achieve the same success and acceptance through assimilation.

The term withdrawal or secession had been utilized earlier in 1776. South Carolina startled partition after the Continental Congress tried to tax each and every colony based on the number of the entire residents that would comprise slaves. Approved by the U.S. Congress, the Kansas-Nebraska Act permitted people in the provinces of Kansas and Nebraska with their consent to permit bondage or slavery inside their frontiers. The Act dropped the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which precluded subjugation or human servitude. This act was a political fit of anxiety as many people contradicting the act sensed that it would enable slaveholders to command the novel states of the West opening the gates for the Southern states to rule the administration of the country and to constrain the North to a perpetual minority. This act was a colossal catalyst for leading the country into a Civil War. Secession, as it pertains to the occurrence of the American Civil War, involves the series of occasions when eleven territories in the Upper and Lower South cut off their relation with the Union (“Kansas-Nebraska Act”).

Subjugation or slavery was just a fragment of the issue. It trickled down to the two significant states of the country and who might be in charge. This dread of losing a stance in Congress founded the Republican party. The act displayed the conceivable move in the government’s lion share. This prompted the Civil War as it intensified the strain between the two regions and added more fuel to the blistering fire. From the Kansas-Nebraska Act, another canister of fuel was decanted onto the fire termed as Dred Scott Decision. In 1857, a slave appealed to the courts for his independence on the grounds that he lived in a region for quite a while that didn’t permit slavery. The replete degree of the slavery dispute was apparent as the Dred Scott choice or decision went out of hands when it was declared that Scott was as yet a slave.

South could not be mollified as the postponement of the servitude problem that erupted in the Kansas-Nebraska Act was the tainted palate for both the mouths. It was neither accepted by them nor did they confide in it. The moderate perspective on Lincoln was not accepted by the masses in the South. They witnessed the legislature or the government that is in possession of the Republicans as a presidency with the intention to execute the radicals’ agenda of circuitous activity to counter slavery, also they were panicked by Lincoln urging to people in the South who were not slave possessors, for the most part, the deprived white man. With the trend in the northern Democrat’s perspective on their comrade Democrats in the South, this was reasonable. The South started to feel just as it was ill-treated (“The History Place – Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act”).

The south was not happy nor did they have any hope or assurances presented by Lincoln. They could not perceive anything great could possibly originate from any Northerner in office be it a Republican or Democrat. It was the concluding act in the drama of the North versus the South. The people’s verdict to elect Abraham Lincoln to office in 1860 as the President left the people of the south more frustrated and restless. Despite the circumstances that Lincoln was enthusiastic to bargain with the South, several Northerners would not oblige and many Southerners denied to acknowledge it. Many on both sides either needed a huge victory or defeat. War was unavoidable when neither one of the sides was wholeheartedly ready to work with the opponent’s side for harmony (Graf).

The Kansas Nebraska Act is debatable both during the course of its induction and subsequent to its implementation. Perhaps the sustained progress of the Republican Party, a faction that was conceived out of anti-Kansas-Nebraska notion, is a testament for lot problems that persisted to be more disturbing even after 1854.

In 1858, as the country drew ever nearer to disunion, two politicians from Illinois pulled in the consideration and attracted the attention of a nation. From August 21 up until October 15, Stephen Douglas battled Abraham Lincoln in a series of face to face debates around the state. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a series and progression of formal political debates between the challenger, Abraham Lincoln, and the incumbent, Stephen A. Douglas, in a campaign for one of Illinois’ two United States Senate seats. In spite of the fact that Lincoln lost the election, the debates propelled him into national prominence which in the long run prompted his election as President of the United States. At the time, Stephen Douglas had been the incumbent, however, in an attempt to take the seat of Lincoln then challenged Douglas to a series and progression of debates. Despite the fact that the precise arrangement of the debates were somewhat not the same as the Lincoln-Douglas of today (in those days the first speaker represented an hour or 60 minutes, the second had an hour and a half or 90 minute counter, and afterward the main speaker had a 30 minute rebuttal/time for closing arguments) the adversarial idea of the debates were comparative.

Abraham Lincoln was chosen by the Republicans to challenge Douglas for the Senate seat. Upon accepting the nomination given to him, Lincoln gave his well-known “House divided” speech. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or the other”. As mentioned in his speech, Lincoln argued that the country cannot possibly go on living half-free and half-slave. It either has to become entirely slave, or entirely free. Lincoln challenged Douglas to a series of seven debates in seven different citites throughout seven different states, the first being, Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858, second, Freeport, Illinois, August 27, 1858, third, Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858, fourth, Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, fifth, Galesburg, Illinois, October 7, 1858, sixth, Quincy, Illinois, October 13, 1858, and seventh, Alton, Illinois, October 15, 1858. At that time, the state legislatures elected the U.S. senators and not the citizens of the state.

In the second debate, what became known as the Freeport Doctrine, Douglas answered that whatever the Supreme Court chose was not as significant as the actions of the citizens. Lincoln asked Douglas if slavery could be limited in spite of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott ruling. Douglas answered yes to his statement. Douglas was an advocate of popular sovereignty or the belief that individuals living in a territory should decide if that territory should be free or slave can go against the ruling. It was, he stated, a sacred right of self-government. Lincoln called attention to that Douglas’ position directly tested the Dred Scott choice, which decreed that the citizens of a certain territory had no such power. In his speech, he stated, “I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution”. In short, Douglas said the territories and states can pass laws that defy the federal government. On the off chance that a territory wouldn’t have slavery, no laws, no Supreme Court ruling, would force them to permit it. This sentiment would be taken as disloyalty and betrayal to numerous southern Democrats and would cause issues down the road for Douglas in his bid to become President in the election of 1860.

As a result, Douglas wins the election in 1858 and the Democratic Part is further split along sectional lines. The south had then distrusted Douglas. In 1860, Douglas does not win a single southern state except for Missouri, which was a border state. Lincoln becomes well-known nationally and became one of the frontrunners for the 1860 Republican nomination, which he won.

Now, Lincoln-Douglas debates are competitive speaking activities that involves two debaters arguing for and against a resolution that is selected by the NFL (National Forensics League) and voted on by coaches. Today, somewhat like the old debates, LD focuses on the conflicting values of social and philosophical issues, for example, by examining questions of morality, justice, democracy, etc. Typically, LD debates concern themselves with deciding whether or not certain actions, or states of affairs, are good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral.

One of the most pressing issues in the twenty-first Century is economic security along with the oppression of people. To understand just how much economic security impacts people it is crucial to understand just how problematic it is. Since the beginning of time oppression and economic instability have always gone hand in hand. Throughout history and culture, I was able to see how national and economic security along with inequality has changed and improved over time.

The theme of the problem of the twenty-first century is the adaptation of economic insecurity and oppression of the people can be seen in ‘The Ballot or The Bullet” Malcolm X explains how people of color are being oppressed and in order to fight oppression African Americans needed to vote in order to be free from the “White man”. Not only were African Americans oppressed but many different other ethnicities as well. They were oppressed politically when it involved voting and most of all economically. For example, “We’re all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation – all of them from the same enemy. The government has failed us; you can’t deny that” (X, 298). In the quote stated I believe that “the same enemy” (X, 298) is actually the government because of how they condemn our nation but yet oppress the people. It’s crazy to think that the nation we live in has actually set us up for failure time and time again. In the quote economic struggle and inequality are seen when it states, “We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation, and social degradation – all of them from the same enemy” (X, 298). This was mainly seen because of the reign of “white men”. People were voted into office to change the lives of people of color for the better but instead, those elected did nothing about it. Until people made their voices loud and impactful enough causing those in power to actually make a change by allowing those from low-income households support and children no matter what color a fair education along with voting and equal rights.

A more complex form of oppression and economic insecurity can be seen in “Dred Scott v. Sandford”. Roger Taney explains how Dred Scott, an enslaved African American sued for his freedom since he resided in Illinois which was a territory that banned slavery. He considered himself a free man but many others argued otherwise that he was still a slave because he wasn’t seen as a citizen. This caused his case to be taken to the supreme court. Ultimately, The supreme court ruled that no African Americans could be a citizen and that Dred Scott was still a slave. The “Dred Scott v Sandford” is important because it showed the oppression and economic insecurity faced by not only Dred Scott but all African Americans. This case impacted the world because now regardless of one’s ethnicity or race people who are born in the U.S are now considered citizens and being offered a fair trial. For instance, “ Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law” (Taney, 180). This quote shows just how much throughout the years oppression and economic insecurity have improved throughout the U.S. This is easy to see in the quote when it states “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without the due process of the law” (Taney, 180). This quote is correlating the fifth amendment. Thanks to the fifth amendment it protected the rights of an accused person and allowed the growth of fairness throughout America by removing oppression held in court.

My outlook on the problem of the Twenty-first century being economic instability and oppression can also be seen in “One day this kid”, when Wojnarowicz goes on to explain how his future self will begin to discover all of these many different things about himself but most importantly he will discover that his sexual preference will be completely different since he would like the company of a man better than a women. After making that discovery he has realized that he will be seen as an outcast by many people simply because of what Wojnarowics identifies as and prefers sexually. As a result, society will view his sexual preference as a sin and in doing so would cause such damage to his life. For instance, “He will be subject to loss of home, civil rights, jobs, and all conceivable freedoms. All this will begin to happen in one or two years when he discovers he desires to place his naked body on the naked body of another boy” (Wojnarowicz, 341). In this quote, he explains what will happen to him when he identifies as gay because he will be exposed to all this hatred in society. But Wojnarowicz was never ashamed of who he was and he made that clear to anyone who read his work. Throughout the development of the twenty-first century, many rights have been established for people like Wojnarowics and they are now labeled as the LGBTQ+ community. Throughout time societal lenses have changed how we view those part of the LGBTQ+ community in more of a positive aspect. Society is now much more accepting especially with laws that allowed same-sex marriage.

The Growth of economic instability and oppression of people can also be seen in “Lynch Law in America”. Ida B. Wells addressed and exposed all the vile acts taken against African Americans by lynch mobs. She points out an issue about how those who committed these hateful acts against African Americans got away without any punishment while African American families who were victims suffered. She exposed the racial injustice about lynch mobs and how white people used lynching as a tactic to punish and control Black Americans who competed with whites. Since these crimes were committed by white people whether it be a male or female they suffered no consequences or legal offenses while having the power to end the life or control the fate of an African American. For example, “under this reign of the “unwritten law,” no colored man, no matter what his reputation, is safe from lynching if a white woman, no matter what her standing or motive, cares to charge him with insult or assault. It is considered a sufficient excuse and reasonable justification to put a prisoner to death under this “unwritten law”’ (Wells, 200). This quote shows me just how much power white people have since they were able to condemn black people to death with only allegations. Lynchings not only oppressed African Americans but it caused a minor set back just when they were finally gaining rights and economic stability. Ida B. Wells is a great example of oppression and economic insecurity because when people tried to keep her quiet for shedding light on lynch mobs she continued to preserve even when her life was in danger. As a result, her book ended up becoming a hit and caused the U.S to make some major changes.

An interesting outlook on oppression and economic insecurity can be also be seen in the “Declaration” when Tracy Smith says, “He has plundered our— ravaged our— destroyed the lives of our—taking away our­— abolishing our most valuable—and altering fundamentally the Forms of our—In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury” (Smith, 53). This quote allows me to see how severely African Americans were oppressed by the people. It is easy to see that after much pleading for equality they are forced to keep quiet by “repeated injury” to silence them. As a result, they faced economic insecurity which caused many African Americans to lose their livelihood. Tracy Smith’s outlook on the “Declaration” is very brain-picking because of how she incorporates her statements. I believe that the “He” Tracy Smith refers to is those who have failed Black Americans; being the government. While her repetition of the word “our” is those who are being oppressed and face economic instability. This has improved in the twenty-first century because now the government has become aware of many of the challenges that African Americans face socially and physically. Subsequently, various ways are offered to help and improve the quality of life for many Black Americans.

In examining these five different passages I was able to see how national and economic insecurity along with inequality has changed and improved over time. Through various forms of oppression and economic struggles, I was able to observe the changing and development of history through the story of those who faced oppression and economic insecurity Whether they were African American or part of the LGBTQ+ community. Throughout each passage examined it is easy to see how the U.S has really improved from what it used to be. Even though The U.S has progressed we will have a long way to go. America has a history of always trying to improve their nation and society by promoting equal rights and access to economic growth.

The Lincoln Douglas Debate was a very short two months of debating. Although this debate was very short a lot of factors have been mentioned in this debate from the past and have made it quite interesting for historians to argue about. This has been a debate in the books for a very long time and it’s all clear that Stephen Douglas, who actually won the debate, is the real winner in the debate and everything that he said from popular sovereignty being the main factor was correct and something that a lot of people followed.

Lincoln believed there was a slave power conspiracy and there were too many “coincidences” in favor of slavery (example: Scott vs Sanford’s outcome, President Buchanan saying whatever the outcome everyone should support it). This is a madman that believes in nothing in rumors and conspiracy. No one can argue with the verdict of the Dred Scott vs Sanford because it is the law, and no one can argue with the law. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. There is no arguing with the outcome of a case. This was a big point that Douglas attacked Lincoln with during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, “Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court–to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution.” This quote shows to be as a very tough piece of information used against Lincoln and was used against him because Democrats looked to portray Republicans as anti-Constitutional since they declined to totally submit to the choice of the Supreme Court, despite the fact that the Court’s choice, as indicated by the Democrats, had been completely inside their ward as characterized in the Constitution. Stephen Douglas particularly utilized this method to criticize Abraham Lincoln during their discussions in Illinois in 1858.

Another main problem that led to Douglas getting the perfect chance to attack Lincoln was that Lincoln believes “that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free” This is a very strong point that Douglas brings to the table to put Lincoln into a very tight space. Just when people thought Douglas was done he came and supported his argument with many questions and gave a big conclusion to what he believes. He said “Why can it not exist divided into free and slave States? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day, made this Government divided into free States and slave States, and left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased on the subject of slavery. Why can it not exist on the same principles on which our fathers made it?” His continuation on these questions is basically him answering them and showing why Lincoln is wronged. He said, “They knew when they framed the Constitution that in a country as wide and broad as this, with such a variety of climate, production and interest, the people necessarily required different laws and institutions in different localities. They knew that the laws and regulations which would suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the rice plantations of South Carolina, and they, therefore, provided that each State should retain its own Legislature and its own sovereignty, with the full and complete power to do as it pleased within its own limits, in all that was local and not national.” That is why we are the United States of America. We are united as one nation, yes, but each state is different from the other. Stephen A. Douglas argues that ‘The great principle of self government is at stake, and surely the people of this country are never going to decide that the principle upon which our whole republican system rests is vicious and wrong.’ Self-government within the states should be the utmost priority of the people. Popular Sovereignty is the only answer because every state will never come to an agreement on whether the US should have slaves or abolish it. Douglas again brings up a huge statement to help his argument and show the reason on why popular sovereignty should be the clearest thing to do.

An argument that is usually brought up many times and a argument that Lincoln supporters try to make seem right is “Slavery violates self-government, slavery is despotism.” That was a very rough piece of information brought up during the debate and it simply made Lincoln look bad because Lincoln could not simply just stick to one side. To the supporters of Lincoln, this is a major point to be brought up and I believe this should be reiterated on how Lincoln does not have the greater good of the black people in mind. If you recall during the 4th debate, when asked about whether he was in favor of producing equality between the black people and white people, this is what he had to say. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” This still shows how Lincoln really did not care for the blacks and simply did not want the equality between them and the white people. He does not only say that he also goes on saying that the black people are not allowed to do work that white people do and work that usually deals with the government and also mentions how it is forbidden for black and white people to live together because the white people tend to be more superior then the black people in his eyes. He also said how the white race tends to have more superiority than the black race which is something that triggered Douglas into bringing up this point and using it as a perfect way to counter the argument and put the judges to his side. “The day after Douglas introduced his Kansas-Nebraska bill in the Senate, a group of abolitionist lawmakers released a statement condemning Douglas’s proposal as “a gross violation of a sacred pledge; a criminal betrayal of precious rights; part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers from our own states, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism inhabited by masters and slaves.” Douglas, they said, was hatching a monstrous plot to spread “the blight of slavery” across the land and “subjugate the whole country to the yoke of slaveholding despotism.” Douglas responded that he was merely attempting to ensure the survival of “a great principle of self-government,”8 to “allow the people to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery.”8 This is another major point in the argument because it is Lincoln just simply telling lies and thinking about Douglas’s ideas in a completely different way and that’s something that confused Lincoln and got him in thinking the wrong thing and eventually it led him to saying the wrong thing. Then after Douglas answered with a counter argument and made it clear what he really was trying to do in the States and show Lincoln what he was trying to do was to better the society and indeed not make worse.

Lincoln did have his time and the right to say whatever he wanted about the blacks. Douglas also got the chance to talk about them and how they should be free. Douglas said, “I hold that this Government was made on the white basis, by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men and none others. I do not believe that the Almighty made the negro capable of self-government.” He is first emphasizing how he does not agree with the negro capable self-government which was a major thing back then. He goes on saying “Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit of reading that part of the Declaration of Independence to prove that the negro was endowed by the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow-citizens, that in my opinion, the signers of the Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever, when they declared all men to be created equal. They desired to express by that phrase white men, men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference either to the negro, the savage Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality of men. One great evidence that such was their understanding, is to be found in the fact that at that time every one of the thirteen colonies was a slaveholding colony, every signer of the Declaration represented a slaveholding constituency, and we know that no one of them emancipated his slaves, much less offered citizenship to them when they signed the Declaration.” This is another thing that Douglas did bring up to prove his point on why the blacks did deserve to be free as the other races did. This really did trigger Lincoln because it went against his argument big time but this point just shows how Douglas made the right point in order to seal the case and for the other people sitting around him to think about this as a logical thing and agreeing on his point. That is one thing that Douglas was excellent in, being able to obtain the audience and getting them in agreeing with his points.

A main point that is seemed to counter the case was the act of despotism. Many say that slavery is indeed an act of despotism. Saying slavery is despotism is simply untrue. The literal definition of despotism is that a single entity rules with absolute power, such as a tyrant or dictator. This isn’t the case in slavery there is not one single ruler with absolute power. Some may argue that a slave master is a single ruler with absolute power. Well, there is not one single master in all of the United States, there are multiple masters so that already goes against the definition of despotism where it emphasizes that there is one single ruler. Furthermore, the slave master does not have absolute power; the government sets guidelines and rules to restrict their power and authority. Chief Justice Roger Taney began with a statement of what he saw as the core issue in the case: The question is simply this: “Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?” It will be seen that the request applies to that class of people just whose precursors were negroes of the African race, and brought into this nation and sold and held as slaves. The main issue in issue under the steady gaze of the court, in this way, is, regardless of whether the relatives of such slaves, when they will be liberated, or who are conceived of guardians who had gotten free before their introduction to the world, are residents of a State in the sense in which ‘resident’ is utilized in the Constitution of the United States. Furthermore, this being the main issue in contest on the pleadings, the court must be comprehended as talking in this assessment of that class just, that is, of those people who are the relatives of Africans who were brought into this nation and sold as slaves.