TASCLASS: The U.S. Civil War: Dred Scott: Discussion

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Dred Scott: Discussion

Please post intelligent comments regarding the following:

Was the Dred Scott decision racist? Or was it political? Explain what the difference may be to you.
Was it constitutional to support property rights over Black civil rights? If so, do you think the Constitution was racist at that time?

7 comments:

Unknown said...: the Dred Scott decision was rascist. he was denied any basic right that should be given to him as a human being. anything he said didn't mean a thing to the court just because he was black.it was political as well.i think Taney saw that the Republican party was growing as well as the North, which means that for the first time in many years the north was going to be more powerful.he saw the dred scott decision as a way to cripple not only the north but the growing republican party as well.i think it was his stab at trying to ruin both the north and the republicans because he was a democrat in a very powerful spot.

the constitution at the time definitely supported the property rights over black civil rights.this is evidenced by the three-fifths clause and by the fact that dred scott was considered a slave or property before he was ever even considered a black human being.

and yes,i think the constitution at the time was indeed racist.it was systematically denying someone their basic rights just because of the color of their skin.and that is the very definition of racist,as we decided in class.; September 18, 2007 at 1:38 PM
pr said...: Who is v? and who made these thoughtful comments?

V,

Do you think it is possible that Taney and the rest of the court was not actively racist, but rather just all too willing to use slaves as an instrument to beat back the new Republican party? It is perhaps callous, but it is also politics. And fear- a fear of being overwhelmed by the huge banks and industrial interests of the north...

Pete; September 18, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Unknown said...: v= Brandon(sorry,old google account i forgot about)

yes,it it completely possible that no one on that panel of judges was actively racist.but it also needs to be kept in mind that Taney was indeed a life long democrat so it could have simply been that he was so wrapped up in his party that it didnt matter whether the decision was racist or not.but the decision itself,was indeed racist,whether the judges were actively racist or not.

and it is just as possible that those judges were indeed all too willing to use slavery to cripple the republican party.

its sad that they may have had to use such a hot button issue in such a negative way to cripple the growing opposition.but it is completely possible that they did.

Brandon; September 19, 2007 at 2:28 PM
emmalove said...: well my thought is that the court didn t give Dred scott a chance to speak about his decision and thought.

Emma

p.s. sorry pete did not get far in my comment; September 20, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Unknown said...: To a point discrimination of any kind towards someone that isnt of your own ethnicity or race is racist. In my opinion yes the decision was racist. Brandon is right in some ways. yes humans are born with rights. but since this was in the "U.S." rights are given at birth...in the country not just any person born anywhere. the constitution was racest in that it doesnt aply to non U.S. Citizens..

or am i completely off?....
-Becks; September 24, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Throw some D's on it said...: Well yes, I think it was racist. This is because he was treated unfairly due to his skin color.

Jay Kelly; September 25, 2007 at 2:41 PM
emily said...: i agree it's unfair that dred scott didn't have any rights in the trial, but that's the way things were the white people back then were ignorant and some still are unfortunately... there's still cases of blacks not having equal rights and its a real sad case.; October 2, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Post a Comment

Class Overview

Part Three: War and Politics (4 weeks)

Here we look at the cascade of events that followed Lincoln's election in 1860, leading through the secession of the southern states, to the beginning of the war. We then will consider three of four crucial battles, each of which could have changed the war's outcome: Shiloh, the first battle with huge casualties; Antietem, both ghastly and inconclusive, the first invasion of a Union state; and Gettysburg, another attempt by the South to push to devastation off of its crucial farmland.

We then look at the two political leaders, Lincoln and Davis, and the two new and consequential military leaders, Grant and Lee. We will discuss the intersection of politics and military strategy in a democracy and the very important realization that in modern war, the political dimension is far more significant than what happens on the battlefield.

Then on to the most important aspect of the war: the vast changes the country begins to undergo, particularly the way in which slaves take their fate into their own hands and decisively shift the advantage to the northern armies.

We will then discuss the battle of Petersburg. As with so many of these battles it was notable for both tragic incompetence and incredible determination, was also strangely modern in its weaponry and tactics. This is the finally turning point of the war, the last realistic chance the South had for a military victory.

This portion of the class will end with a week long look at Lincoln's key speeches: Cooper Union, Gettysburg, and the Second Inaugural. We will then compare their effectiveness and clarity with those of some of his political opponents.
(thanks to P.W. for the idea...)

Part Four: Surrender and Reconstruction (3 weeks)

Grant has won. He offers very generous terms to the defeated Confederates, once again showing that he understands Lincoln's intentions better than any of the previous generals. Lincoln is assassinated and the country is plunged into mourning, fear, and anger. Reconstruction of the South begins with President Johnson handing the task over to southern whites, which eventually so infuriates northern voters that they hand over Congress to the radical Republicans, who promptly pass of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. The Civil Rights Era had, in a way, begun. For the first time, Black Americans have a significant political voice in the South. Yet it does not last. The Federal Government begins to pull back and violent, reactionary elements in the South begin to terrorize, kill, and otherwise suppress these newly enfranchised citizens . A new political order forms, not based on slavery per se, but with the goal of pushing Black Americans out of power and into a new kind of servitude.

Part Five: The Civil War Now (1 week)

We end the class with a brief look at the rise of the Civil Rights Movement in the early 20th century and the various ways that the Civil War has shaped modern American. We will also consider how the struggle continues over what the war means for us today.

Part One: Dred Scott (3 weeks) (finished)

Dred Scott vs. Sanford is unquestionably one of the three or four most consequential court cases in American History. Scott was a slave transported by his owner from the slave state of Missouri through several territories in which slavery was not permitted. His claim was that since he had lived in a free state, he was thus free. The case forced the Supreme Court to decide a number of very important issues, among them the management of slavery in the rapidly expanding territories and the status of slaves in these territories.

We will discuss how and why the case was decided as it was and explore several crucial events that led directly to it including the Fugitive Slave Clause in the U.S. Constitution, the Missouri Compromise, the rise of the Republican Party, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Compromise of 1854, and "Bleeding Kansas".

Part Two: Economics (1 week)

The two regions of the United States had changed enormously since the country's founding. As the northern economy diversified and industrialized, the south grew ever more reliant on slaves and agriculture.

TASCLASS: The U.S. Civil War

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Dred Scott: Discussion

7 comments:

Class Overview

Dred Scott

Blog Archive

About Me