Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
6. That was Tandy's Ruling in Dred Scott
Fri Oct 4, 2013, 09:39 AM
Oct 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

Now, the Dred Scott decision is one of the most divisive decisions ever issued,

More on US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

Dred Scott case including lower court rulings:
http://digital.wustl.edu/d/dre/browse.html

Six concurring opinions, Two Dissenting opinions, in addition to Tandy's decsion (Join by only two other Justices out of the then 10 Justices).

Tandy's decision:
http://digital.wustl.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dre;cc=dre;view=text;idno=dre1857.0105.108;rgn=div1;node=dre1857.0105.108%3A1

In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they 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. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's a sanctuary first and foremost. n/t Loudly Oct 2013 #1
A sanctuary pretending to be a nation-state starroute Oct 2013 #5
Great response. Fantastic Anarchist Oct 2013 #9
A sanctuary for the Jewish people who were dispersed after the destruction of the temple JDPriestly Oct 2013 #10
That's not what this is about. Ash_F Oct 2013 #12
Israel was established as a sanctuary for Jews. And people hate Jews, therefore they hate JDPriestly Oct 2013 #15
If you have read my posts on this forum, Ash_F Oct 2013 #20
In understand the court case. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #22
Palestine is not currently a country Ash_F Oct 2013 #25
Let's hope current plans to negotiate peace between Palestiinians and Israel are productive JDPriestly Oct 2013 #26
It's hard to disagree with that. Ash_F Oct 2013 #27
Um, I'm Jewish ... Fantastic Anarchist Oct 2013 #14
See my post at 15. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #16
That still didn't address my point, but okay. nt Fantastic Anarchist Oct 2013 #18
Lots of insensitive people on this 'liberal' board. closeupready Oct 2013 #24
In a dispute between moderate and right wing Jews Ash_F Oct 2013 #28
Sorry, it was more of a general remark, I probably closeupready Oct 2013 #29
Sure, just put the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in charge of Israel. Loudly Oct 2013 #32
Imagine if the US constitution said cosmicone Oct 2013 #2
Not a good analogy - just note our President - elected in a landslide - is not in the dominant group karynnj Oct 2013 #4
That was Tandy's Ruling in Dred Scott happyslug Oct 2013 #6
Please read my post Number 15. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #19
Prior to 1924 the only real Americans were not considered Americans Snake Plissken Oct 2013 #8
White, anglo-saxons don't need a sanctuary. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #11
Oh yeah? cosmicone Oct 2013 #13
Akward....! I doubt we'll start referring to the Israeli Ambassador as the Jewish Ambassador. What 24601 Oct 2013 #3
See my post at 15. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #17
Can we stop calling Israel a secular state now? ForgoTheConsequence Oct 2013 #7
Read my post Number 15, please. JDPriestly Oct 2013 #21
I did. ForgoTheConsequence Oct 2013 #23
They're upholding traditional practice. Igel Oct 2013 #30
maybe there should be far reaching consequences booley Oct 2013 #31
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Israeli court rejects Isr...»Reply #6