The Declaration of Independence in America - Assignment Example

1. Did the constitution regulate the status of blacks, free or slave, in America? The Declaration of Independence that read, “we hold this truth to be self evident, that all men are created equal” was incompatible with the institution of slavery. The constitution did regulate the status of men, but not “black men” per se. The concept of slavery was discussed in the constitution but only vaguely and with ambiguity, whereas there was nothing in the constitution that regulated the status of blacks in general. The slave-trade clause in the Constitution, inserted to enable states to be able to “import” slaves by paying a duty was one clause, which caused slaves to be looked on as property. Whereas, on the other hand, the fugitive-slave clause labeled the slaves as “persons”, thus giving the impression that slaves could not be property. These are two of the three instances where the Constitution, albeit ambiguously, touched upon the subject of slaves, apart from this, the Constitution did not control or manage the status of slaves in particular and black slaves in general. Therefore, it would be correct to assume that it was not the Constitution but local laws that regulated the status of blacks, both as free men and slaves. 2. Examine the issue of slavery and the territorial question. It is very interesting to note the very conflicting views on slavery of the Northern and Southern states of America. Though, at the end of the eighteenth century, the stance of the representatives of the South was not as pro-slavery as in the later years. Since the Southerners were not very worried about their political position in the Union (as they would be in the mid nineteenth century), they did not take slavery or its abolition to be that contentious an issue. Under the Missouri Compromise, a number of the states had become “free states” which is to state that they abolished slavery within their territory. On the same hand there were states which allowed slavery (slave states) and, in fact, flourished because of it. Now the question as to how the territorial question applied to the slaves arose. What was the status of a slave from a “slave state” when s/he entered a “free state”, would s/he be free or still a slave. There were three answers to this question: 1. The slave remained a slave whether he entered a free state or not. 2. The slave became a free man as soon as he was taken into a free state, but remained so only till he returned to a slave state. Once he returned to such a state, he became a slave once again. 3. The slave became a free man permanently as soon as he entered a free state, and remained so even if he returned to a slave state. It would not be wrong to say that slavery was well entwined with the territory of the States in the US. 3. Analyze Taney's decision. Was it good law or was it a bad decision? Was it based on an accurate historical understanding of the issues involved? Taney started by analyzing whether Dred Scott could be referred to as a citizen of Missouri and whether he was within his rights to sue in a Missouri Court. Taney replied in the negative to these questions, stating that even if Dred Scott was afforded the position of a citizen in one State, he could not become a citizen in another. Moreover, Taney cited the examples of the Indians in US territories, as well as those of the founding fathers of the US. Citing how the former could become citizens if they were amalgamated, but were not enjoying the rights of “aliens”, and the latter and their posterity were the ones for whom the term “citizen” could aptly apply, as they were the ones the makers of the Constitution had in mind when they were framing it. Also, the people who were imported as slaves, and their children, whether now free or not were not, nor were intended to be, the ones “included in the general words used in” the Declaration of Independence at the time of succession. He gives accurate examples of the laws of the various states (both free and slave) that show how the “Negroes” were not meant to be the citizens of the US and how they were discriminated against in all these laws, as the lawmakers considered them to be inferior and uncivilized and not worthy of the term “citizen”. Another line of reasoning that he adopts is that if Negroes were to be considered “citizens” then their rights would not fluctuate based on which State they were in, as a citizen enjoys equal rights in all parts of his country irrespective of the State/territory. If analyzed based on the arguments that Chief Justice Taney put forward, this decision was very logical and quite good. It can easily be discerned that the framers of the US Constitution did indeed have only free white men in mind when they used the terms like “citizens” and “equality before law”. Had they not done so they would not have themselves been owners of slaves who they treated as chattels and not people. Moreover, it is indeed a sad truth that even in the free states, there were still laws that allowed the trade of slaves to go on, and many people did benefit from it (a point that Taney raises in his judgment as well). So it can be seen that even those in the free states did not consider Negroes to be “citizens” of the States, much less the US, as they also had laws that were specifically aimed at claiming citizenship as a right of the “free, white men”. In my opinion, Taney has quite a firm grip on the historical events that preceded this case. Though, to a certain degree, had he been a keen observer of the way the tide was moving, he would have come up with a better decision than the one he gave. His decision, quite frankly, reeked of racism and he refused to accept that anyone except the “free, white man” could be a citizen subject of the States or the US. He cited examples that suited his purpose and completely ignored the laws and cases whereby a Negro could be termed as a citizen of the States. However, had Taney only limited himself to the question of the jurisdiction of the lower Court and dismissed it based on lack of jurisdiction, it would have been enough, but he went on to argue the merits and demerits of the case, and finally came up with the conclusion that blacks were not “citizens” of the States or the US, and were in fact mere property of their owners, and hence could not sue for their freedom. This is where he put in his own personal bias in the decision. It is interesting to note that Taney did not consider the blacks to be humans, but a degree below them. It does not cross his mind that the forefathers or the makers of the Constitution could be wrong in practicing slave trading, but he justifies it by stating that since the forefathers were of impeccable moral character, and were very upright in their dealings, hence, if they considered slavery to be a morally right practice and if they did not abandon it, then it means that slavery is and can be morally justified. What is more interesting, however, is that Taney did not allow his judgment to be published till almost three months after giving it. When he eventually did allow it, it was noted that there were many differences between the published judgment and the one that journalists etc. noted in the courtroom at the time the judgment was given in court. This clearly shows that he had made amendments to it to answer the objections that the abolitionists and his critics (mostly Northern newspapers) raised afterwards; it also shows his integrity (or lack thereof) as well as his personal involvement in the case, which is to say that he gave his own views preference over the facts. His decision ended up giving a hard blow to the impartiality of the Supreme Court, a blow from which it took the Supreme Court many years to recover. This was considered to be one of the worse judgments of the Supreme Court on the status of Negroes, and in a way it was a precursor to a lot of violence, something that could have been avoided had Taney not tainted his judgment with prejudice. 4. How did the other judges rule? The justices Wayne, Grier, Daniel Campbell and Catron agreed with Chief Justice Taney’s ruling completely. Justice Campbell though agreed with the ruling, did not concur with its reasoning. Justices Curtis and McLean dissented based on the fact that the court did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. They laid down that the matter relating to jurisdiction was the only one which should have been discussed in the apex court and the other part of the plea should have been left unheard or at least stated as obiter dicta and not as a judgment. 5. Was this a southern decision? Was it a states' rights decision? Was it based on a "loose" or “strict" construction of the constitution? In a strict sense of “southern vs. northern” this was a very southern decision. It not only gave a sense of “morality” to the slave owners of the South, but it also implied that those in the North fighting for abolition were also just as involved in it. In a way, the South that had felt threatened by the North due to its political weakness, and its contention about slavery, now had a sense of vindication because of this decision. If one looks closely at the decision, it is very evident that it is only the point of view of the South that has been put forward. Even the decision makers knew it were so, hence, the need for President Buchanan to contact a northern Justice to align himself with the majority decision so that this decision does not appear parochial. The decision was based on the rights of the states and what they were allowed to do within their territories, so it would not be wrong to assume that it was a states’ rights decision. However, it was based on a very strict construction of the Constitution. Nowhere did the Constitution state that it was only speaking for the whites when it talked about citizenship and equality. For justice Taney to state that since the forefathers participated in slavery (trading and owning) hence, they only meant free white men is a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. Even if the forefathers did intend the Constitution to be for the “free, white men”, they did not explicitly say so, and had the Constitution been interpreted loosely, it would have been evident that blacks (or in this case Dred Scott) could be citizens of the States as well as the US, and were not merely chattels. 6. What role did the Dred Scott case play in the coming of the Civil War? Even before the Dred Scott case, the issue of slavery was heating up to epic proportions. On May of 1856, the incident known as “Bleeding Kansas” occurred, whereby a group of Border Ruffians (a proslavery group of Southerners who resorted to violence) entered Lawrence, which was a free state, and burned a hotel and printing press and also ransacked private run businesses and houses. The next day, Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was beaten badly by Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina, when the former made a speech criticizing the Southerners for the violence of the previous day. This in turn caused a man John Brown, to kill five proslavery men in Kansas’s territory. So one can say that the Dred Scott case was put before the Supreme Court in December of the same year, at a very unfortunate time, and all those present, whether judges or parties or mere observers, knew that it was not a mere case of one black slave wanting freedom that lay before them, but much more than that. Taney, as instructed by the President-elect Buchanan, wanted to end the slavery question once and for all. However, it had the opposite effect on the people. This issue was already the cause of animosity between the South and the North, and with this decision, the proverbial daggers were finally unsheathed and drawn. The newspapers in the North denounced the decision vehemently, with abolitionists calling for disobedience to this ruling, terming it “against God”. The North, finally, took a position against the South, and not against the institution of slavery only. Similarly, this decision was hailed as a “success” in the South, with the Southern newspapers welcoming it and the South threatening disunion if the opinion of the court was not accepted. For the first time the South and the North became polarized and saw each other as the “enemy”. They stopped looking at the problem (slavery), and instead made it personal, so that to their mind, everyone from South was proslavery and everyone from the North was an abolitionist. The Democratic Party fell apart over issues raised by the case, especially when there was a walk out from their convention when they asked to adopt a national slave code based on the decision in this case. It was due to this reason that Abraham Lincoln won as the only Republican candidate against three produced by the damaged Democratic Party. Ironically, Chief Justice Taney swore in Lincoln as president in 1861. The rest, of course, is history. So it would not be wrong to assume here that there was quite a visible impact of the Dred Scott case in the occurrence of the American civil war. Read More