Slaves in America
Dred Scott was the Plaintiff in a 1857 case that has been called, "the self inflicted wound" on the US Supreme Court. Is this an accurate description of the legacy of the Taney Court??? In the best one or two paragraphs ever written give us your opinion on this statement. This is due October 31--Trick or Treat?
Yes, Completely.
ReplyDeleteThe wound: The Supreme Court did not fulfill their duties in a just manner; the Taney Court used their personal opinions over the constitution. If they had just used the constitution, the ruling would have been the same but the majority opinion would have been less hurtful and racist. This caused the Supreme Court to lose credibility, which, evidently, becomes the wound.
Self-Infliction: the wound is self-inflicted due to the fact that the Supreme Court could completely avoided losing such credibility. By leaving out the racist and opinionated portion of Taney’s majority opinion, the Supreme Court would have ruled using on the constitution, as they are supposed to do, and would not have lost credibility or the trust of the American people.
-McCarthy
The whole purpose of law is to follow the Constitution; if Taney had followed the Constitution, by upholding the free states’ laws regarding slavery, then the people would have trusted the government in general. Because the people suddenly realized the government was not to be trusted, this caused the Dred Scott case to be known as a “self-inflicted wound” on the Supreme Court. This racist and appalling legacy of the Taney Court is accurate because of the ruthless opinion of the ruling in the Dred Scott case: slaves are slaves no matter what state they are taken to. Taney basically stabbed the Supreme Court in the back by placing his own opinion above the Constitution. In the big picture this causes distrust between the people and the government, represented by Taney, whose decision states, “[Blacks] were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution.”
ReplyDelete~Emily Barclay
The Dred Scott v Stanford court case was a lot more than its final verdict; It was the trust and morals of the government that rapidly diminished following the case. Within Taney's court they failed to uphold their duties as justices in a proper manner. The court obliged by the ruling of the constitution by stating that Dred Scott cannot be a free man, but the case became a self inflicting wound because of it's majority opinion. Taney a member of the Supreme Court placed his opinion over the constitutions through his majority opinion where he boldly displayed his racism. After the case, people began to lose faith and trust in the United States government and since the court allowed this to occur it became known as a "self inflicting would". If the court was able to resist releasing such a harmful and racist opinion, the court would have done their job by abiding by the supreme law of the law. Therefore, yes, Taney's Court is responsible for the self inflicting would.
ReplyDelete-Austin Zaepfel
Since the thirteen colonies gained their independence, slavery and its abolishment had been matters of discussion and conflict among states. In order to avoid a civil war over the complicated issue, a series of compromises were reached, such as the Northwest Ordinance, the Missouri Compromise and the Great Compromise of 1850. However, even thought these settlements were able to maintain a somewhat untroubled situation between states, slavery was still a very controversial issue to say the least and there needed to be some finite decision, for the better or for the worse, regarding the future of this inhumane practice. The Supreme Court acknowledged this fact. Hence, when the chance to rule on slavery came, Chief Justice Taney had no doubt when taking the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The court’s decision to take the case was very reasonable, since a ruling over slavery needed to be done on the national level. Unfortunately, instead of settling the matter for good, the Court provided a catalyst for the civil war and put its name and credibility in jeopardy. In other words, Taney’s court self-inflicted a wound that would take long to heal. The question is: how did the Supreme Court do such a thing? The answer is simple. In the rule of Dred Scott v. Sandford, the justices applied the law the way they wanted to, not the way it should be applied. Using the 10th and 5th amendment, Taney ruled that congress was prohibited to pass laws regulating the existence of slavery. He adjusted the Constitution in order to fulfill his own beliefs and let inflammatory opinions voice over the Constitution, completing defeating the purpose of the Judicial Branch’s responsibilities to the nation.
ReplyDeleteAna Alvarenga
Yes, “the self-inflicted wound” is an accurate description of the decision made by Taney’s Court during the case Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). Taney declared that all blacks, whether slave or free, are not and will never be citizens of the United States. He believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, which ultimately legalized slavery in all U.S. territories. Taney was satisfied with this ruling because it finally concluded the open-ended question of slavery once and for all. However, even though the issue of slavery was dealt with, it was not dealt with in a just manner. The Taney Court applied the law how they saw fit, instead of being objective through he eyes of the Constitution. They were able to make their decision on the case based on their subjective opinion, which successfully voiced their opinion on slavery to the nation. By doing this, the government self-inflicted a wound on themselves by not being a trustworthy, objective judicial branch.
ReplyDeleteHalf of the nation was displeased by the verdict of the case. The South favored the decision, while the North had even more reason to be against slavery. This division set the stage for many future American problems, including the civil war. America would later find out that the decision to neglect slaves as citizens would server American unity for over a decade, leaving unhealed scars that still affect many to date.
Bibliography
PBS. PBS. Web. 30 Oct. 2013. .
- Nicky Friedman
The Supreme Court case Dred Scott vs. Sanford was one of the most important court cases in United States’ history. The case came down to two questions main questions of law: Are slaves citizens of the United States? Were federal laws restricting a state government’s right to decide the legality of slavery within its borders constitutional? Justice Taney ruled that the founding fathers when the founding fathers wrote “citizens,” addressing Article III Section II, they did include slaves. Thus, he ruled slaves were not citizens. However Taney did not stop there. If he had, the case may not have been considered one of the most important cases, and certainly would not be called the “Self inflicted wound” on the US Supreme Court. Taney went on to degrade the African American race. “Blacks are beings of inferior order, they are unfit to associate with the white race, and have no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit” (Taney). Taney was utterly and undeniably a racist, and ruled on the verdict of this case based on his own opinions. It was not lawful or just. He substantiated his arguments by applying the 5th and 10th amendments, and ruled that Congress cannot pass laws regulating the existence of slavery in potential states and that Congress cannot deprive someone of their property no matter where they take it. He applied the Constitution to fit his own views. This resulted in a “self inflicted wound” on the US Supreme Court. Citizens questioned the ability of the Court to make truthful and fair decisions. The case also lead to a split between the North and South regarding opinions on slavery, which helped trigger the Civil War.
ReplyDelete-Pete Warsinske
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case of 1857 can accurately be described as a self-inflicted wound on the US Supreme Court. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri who moved to a free territory, but when he moved back to Missouri his rights were taken away and he sued for his freedom in Missouri. The Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that Dred Scott did not have the right to be a citizen and that slavery was legal in all US territories. The ruling goes against the constitution and Taney did not uphold the law of free states regarding slavery. Taney was a racist who used his personal opinions that contradicted the constitution. The wound is self-inflicted because the US government did this to themselves, which was obviously the wrong decision. The citizens of the united states who were against slavery lost faith in our government’s ability to make fair decisions. The ruling was a huge step in the wrong direction for the United States and the supreme court would take over a decade to recover.
ReplyDeleteBen Key-Comis
The Dred Scott in Taney’s court could be best described as a self-inflicted would for the United States of America. Dred Scott’s owner took Scott to land that was free territory where Scott tried to pursue his freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that all African Americans whether a free man or slave cannot be considered a citizen of the United States. This was ultimately an opinion-based response produced by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the ultimate law of the land and it should be up to them to give an unbiased response to any issues at hand that is what makes their jobs so difficult. The response to Dred Scott’s case was ultimately unconstitutional because the court failed to address Scott in a fairly manner by allowing their personal views on slavery to play a part in making a decision. In my opinion, this decision was a huge spark for the Civil War as it basically encouraged the expansion of slavery. This court saw all slaves as personal property. They Supreme Court’s decision definitely had a roll in the friction between the North and South.
ReplyDeleteJake Sontag
Dred Scott v. Sandford was, on paper, just another court case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The ruling handed down was also just another ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States of America, if one were to simply consider the case itself and nothing more. However, it is virtually impossible to ignore the other major part of this case, the part of the case that was not argued over in court. The other major part of the case was the legality of the ruling handed down. Was the ruling fair and accurate, as described by the commandments overruling the Supreme Court, or was it one of personal opinion, where justices did not do their jobs and rather acted in self interest. Indeed, I do believe that the case was an action of a self-inflicted wound, from a gun that was fired by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney. Not only did the ruling serve as a self-inflicted wound to forever leave a tarnish upon the American Peoples' view of the Supreme Court of the time, the ruling also served to send a bullet straight through the Constitution and the laws defining the jobs expected of the Supreme Court, and how these actions are expected to be carried out.
ReplyDelete~Roy Faigenbaum
I do believe that “the self inflicted wound” is an accurate description of the legacy of the Taney Court. Prior to this court case, the United States of America had a lot of trust in their judicial system. Not only in the people who represented the law, but the constitution itself was praised. The horribly racist ruling in the Dred Scott v Stanford case completely shattered all credibility the Supreme Court had. The majority opinion displayed by Taney broke whatever hope people had in the highest system of law. It is known as the self inflicted wound because of the fact that the opinions of the justices completely went against the constitution. I personally agree with this statement because justice Taney did not do his job. He went against what his profession entailed which was use opinion over the law.
ReplyDeleteSam Lewis
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase “the self-inflicted wound” accurately describes the legacy left by the Taney Court. The “wound” of which the phrase refers to, is the Taney Court’s loss of credibility and respect because of its complete disregard to uphold its duties by abiding to the Constitution. Yes, according to the Constitution, Dred Scott could not be a citizen, however, the ruling would have seemed less racist. The “self-infliction” referred to in the phrase, describes the way in which the Supreme Court displays Taney’s majority opinion. The Supreme Court ignores its responsibility to make its decisions based on the Constitution. Instead, they use their personal opinions and their emotions to dictate the ruling, which devalues the public opinion of the Taney Court.
ReplyDelete-M.Denton
The case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was one of the most controversial cases in American history. As this case took place in 1857, slavery was on the border of being abolished. Yet there was an abundance of opposing views within the United States, especially between the north and south (which instigated the Civil War). With the case’s central question being whether or not slaves would be considered citizens, a high debate was inevitable. In this debate, Taney voiced his malicious opinion on slavery, and unconstitutionally declared that slaves are not citizens. This justified that “the self-inflicted wound” was in fact a direct portrayal of the decision that was made by Taney’s Court. This damage’s Taney credibility, as the Supreme Court’s purpose is to interpret the constitutionality of laws (or enforcement of). In this cases majority opinion, however, Taney applied the law to fit his views slavery.
ReplyDelete-Peter Hoover
ReplyDeleteYes, describing the decision made by the Taney's court a "self inflicted wound" is very accurate. Calling it a "self inflicted wound" precisely describes the legacy of Taney's court . This case was very controversial because it displayed that African Americans could not sue the federal court because they were not citizens, they were property. This alone is very morally wrong, but what is worse is that African Americans who were supposedly given their freedom, could not actually grasp it. This case caused a lot of tension between the northern and southern states, and was publicly debated. This added tinder to the flame that would start the fire of the Civil War, which would end up costing approximately 620,000 people their life. Taney's court lost credibility due to Taney not pursuing his duties of judging directly by the constitution.
ReplyDeleteJames Funderburg
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/faq/
The appalling manner in which the Taney Court handled the Dred Scott case resulted in its nickname as the self inflicted wound. I believe that the constitution does side with Sanford since Scott is technically still considered a slave, which in turn means he is property. On the other hand, the way Taney described and presented the court’s decision was incredibly racist and biased. He not only mentions that black people were an inferior being, but also that they cannot associate or be respected by white people. This is an extremely racist remark and it is incredibly different than how Marshall conducted his court. Taney’s words almost directly oppose Marshall’s, when he states, “we are a nation of laws, not men”. This decision leaves the American people with a sense of insecurity, and doubt. Even though the decision was most likely the right one with respect to the current state of the constitution at the time, the way it was handle showed racism. Not only that, but also it showed that Taney and the other members of the court put their own opinions into the case, which is not the way cases should be handled.
ReplyDelete-Kevin O’Neill
Because of his rash decisions in the Dread Scott v Sanford case, Taney indisputably put a self-inflicted wound on the United States Supreme Court. The Dread Scott v Sanford case invoked two major questions: should slaves be considered citizens of the United States of America? And did state governments have the right to choose whether or not slavery was legal without the federal governments involvement. In attempt to answer these questions, Taney said that slaves were not in fact citizens because our founding fathers did not mean for them to be when the constitution was written. Had Taney left is statement at that, this case would very well have not of been a big issue. However, Taney went on to say some extremely racist comments talking about how slavery was good for black people, and that they should not be able to be with whites. The Second Taney said these things; he created this self-inflicted wound on the Supreme Court. Taney brought his own racist opinions into the court, where only constitution should matter, and there for made people question the Courts ability to keep personal opinion out.
ReplyDelete-Troy Bernier
The Dred Scott decision is possibly the most controversial Supreme Court decision ever in the United States. In my opinion, one of the biggest reasons for this is that hindsight is 20-20. What I mean by this is that it’s easy to look back at decisions and talk about how bad they were but in the moment they might not have seemed so bad. In the case of Dred Scott this is also true. Taney’s first decision that Slaves and descendants of former slaves can never be citizens is a valid interpretation of the law. While I may disagree with his interpretation, I also recognize the validity of Taney’s point that the founding fathers probably never meant to include blacks as citizens. Where he hurt himself and created the “self-inflicted wound” was when he went on a racist rant about how blacks were enslaved for their own good. This rant along with his decision that Congress could not make regulatory laws on States having slavery and that a state could not deprive a person of their property significantly damaged the trust people had in the Supreme Court. This also aggravated people and took what could have been a case that cooled tensions had he left his decision based solely on blacks being citizens, and turned it into a case that drastically raised tensions between the states over slavery and maybe even helped start the civil war.
ReplyDeleteJay Allen
Slavery since the beginning of the United States was a difficult subject that seemed to have no solution in sight. The Dred Scott v Sanford case could have started the end to slavery and led a path that could have saved thousands of lives. Taney’s way of approaching the conclusion of the case was not racist in any way and did not degrade the slaves. He simply asked himself questions that would help determine the majority opinion of the case; but when the majority opinion was made Taney wrote it in a way that was completely racist by saying “Blacks were not intended to be included under the word ‘citizen’ in the constitution.” This became known as the self-inflicted wound because people of the United States began to lose faith in the Supreme Court because of this racist outcome. If Taney simply stuck to the constitution to make the decision for the court the Civil War could have been stopped and a solution could have been made for slavery without any bloodshed
ReplyDeleteStephen DePietto
After many progressions towards a country of equality, such as the Missouri compromise and the Northwest Ordinance, the United States failed to meet their morals; morals that would later divide the nation and cause brothers to kill their own blood. This country is prided upon its constitution, and its ability to live under democratic rule through the government. However, the Dred Scott v. Stanford case of 1857 proved that the government could not be trustworthy. The ruling of the case was determined by Taney’s court’s personal beliefs rather than their interpretations of the constitution. Their beliefs were that slaves would be slaves, no matter what state they are in; this opinion was the deciding factor of the case. For this reason is why the decision of this case is referred to as the “self-inflicting wound” because the court’s verdict was not based on the constitution but on their own morals. Not only did the government display their unreliability, but they also displayed their racism. This would please the south, but upset the North and result in them fighting for the extinction of slavery. Because of the Taney’s Court’s inability to withhold their constitutional duties, they stirred the start of a dived nation against one another. This is why Dred Scot v. Stanford of 1857 will always be known as the “self-inflicting wound”.
ReplyDeleteIsiah Nunez
The decision in the Dred Scott v Sandford case of 1857 was accurately nick named the “self-inflicted wound” solely due to the carelessness of Chief Justice Taney. As far as the actual ruling in the case went, it was a fair trial. The Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in the way the founding fathers likely intended it to be understood. In its original writing, it is unlikely that the founding fathers considered counting African Americans in the United States as citizens. Therefore, although I don’t personally agree with the idea, I understand the decision of the court in ruling that no former slave could become a citizen of the United States. Had Taney ended the discussion there, the case would go down as a large landmark decision from the court and nothing more. The issue is: Taney didn’t stop. He then proceeded to go on a rant stating that “the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit…” In his address Taney’s racist opinions come into full view and he makes no attempt to hide the fact that they undoubtedly influenced his opinion. In this way Taney unnecessarily damaged the reputation and credibility of the Supreme Court by placing his opinions above the words of the Constitution as the major deciding factor in his ruling on the case.
ReplyDelete-Chris Zaffanella
The Supreme Court has many rules to follow, but most importantly their job is to identify questions in a case and rule on the constitutionality of those questions. The Supreme Court must interpret the constitution when addressing a case questions and leave morals and personal opinions out of their decisions. The Dred Scott case goes much beyond the final verdict of Taney’s court. The verdict did not simply deny Dred Scott freedom but also displayed to the rest of the country that Taney, and his court put their beliefs, which happened to be racist, before the constitution. When Taney released his majority opinion statements it was no secret that he along a couple other justices were completely racists, and felt they were above the constitution. Though most people could not replace a Supreme Court Justice and do their job, most people understood the situation and the role of the Constitution in the Dred Scott case. When Taney’s statements were released, people began to lose faith in the honesty of the courts, and government. People had no trust in the court, but how could they if the top officials of law weren’t abiding by the law and putting themselves above the constitution. So yes, I believe Taney’s court is responsible for the self inflicting wound, because they went against the written laws of the United States and people lost faith in our government and lost faith in our courts ability to give one an un-bias trial.
ReplyDelete-Troy Pierre-Louis
I believe that the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford is accurately described in being a “self-inflicted wound” for the Supreme Court. Here the “wound” was Taney and the court making a Supreme Court decision based off of their opinions and what was better for them; resulting in a loss of respect and credibility. Dred Scott, the plaintiff and former slave took Sandford to a Federal Court, via diversity jurisdiction, which meant that Scott was in fact a citizen of the US. This is because diversity jurisdiction is when a Federal Court will hear a case from two citizens of the US from different states. However, when the case came to the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, the Head Chief Justice, said that those with African decent are not meant to be included as citizens in the Constitution. Though this was not bad, he decided to continue making this case a “self-inflicted wound” because of his racism. He went on to say that for many years Africans have been enslaved because they are not as good as Americans. Had Taney stopped by just stating that he did not believe slaves should be citizens this case may not have affected the Supreme Court so much. However, when he and the court continued to rule this case on their beliefs and personal benefits this case caused the Supreme Court to look much less credible.
ReplyDeleteThe end product of the Dred Scott v Sanford court case was just as important as what we learned in the bulk of the case. The statement "Dred Scott was the Plaintiff in a 1857 case that has been called, "the self inflicted wound" on the US Supreme Court" is incredibly accurate. Taney inadvertently told the United States that it was okay to voice personal opinions over the word that is the Constitution. Taney said that no black man today or tomorrow will ever be a citizen of the United States in his statement addressing the case, that they were better off as slaves. However, the 14th amendment of the Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." So what does that say about Taney, the white americans, the United States? Are African Americans not born or naturalized? This is for sure a self-inflicted wound upon the supreme court and United States as he puts his racist, selfish thoughts in front of the words set fourth by the Constitution. Dred Scott a slave from Missouri moved to free territory and declared he was citizen as he was in free territory. However, when he moved back to Missouri his rights had been taken away from him and he was sued for his freedom. Due to his racial thoughts, Taney took the rights away from a man because of his skin color. The scary thing is, it still happens today. The statement "Dred Scott was the Plaintiff in a 1857 case that has been called, "the self inflicted wound" on the US Supreme Court" is incredibly accurate.
ReplyDelete-Charlie Corcoran
yes, a self inflicted wound is the perfect way to describe this case. Because African Americans were not necessarily considered citizens at this time, this case was very controversial. Some people did not believe that African Americans should have the right to sue. This caused a lot of tension between the northern and southern states. However, Taney court was very racist and used their personal opinions to rule the decision. This caused the court to lose its credibility. If the court would have just ruled based on the constitution and not on personal opinions, they would have not lost its credibility. They could have easily done this but they didn't, thus creating a self inflicted wound.
ReplyDelete- Olivia Smith