The Influence of Dred Scott Decision on Fredrick Douglass' Arguments

The Dred Scott Decision supported pro-slavery tactics, legal expansion of slavery that directly made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, through skewed viewpoints on the framer’s outlook of slavery when originally composing the constitution. To begin the court stated their opinions regarding African Americans. 

The court stated, “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…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. . . .” This reveals their opinion. An opinion that because the white race is “superior” and because of previous treatment of African Americans as merchandise, the general white public’s opinion is clear—African Americans should not deserve the same respect or treatment. Furthermore the court claimed, “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. . . And if the constitution recognizes the right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen…acting under the authority of the United States…has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of the government.” In simpler terms, because the court regarded freed slaves and other African Americans as property, then they could not constitutionally take away that from their owners. Because to take away property is to take away an essential right to natural born citizens. The court decided that African Americans, free or not, could not be considered citizens as they were not intended to be so in the initial makings of the country. Finally, “it is the opinion of the court that the act of congress which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the United States…is not warranted by the constitution…; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory. . ..” Because they decided they could not be citizens, and have guaranteed rights given to said citizens, then they had no power to sue under the eyes of the court. Although some states were free, because of this decision—of claiming that freed slaves in freed states cannot be free since they are property—furthermore allowed slavery to expand into other states.

The Supreme Court assigned people of African descent the role of property that had no legal standing as citizens—therefore, no rights, including the right to sue under the state of law, were granted to them. Because the term “citizen” refers to people of the united states—that are granted inalienable rights, it refers to the people who had the power and authority of the government through sovereignty. However, the court decided that African Americans “were not intended to be included under the word 'citizen' in the constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” Additionally, the court stipulated, “intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes, not only in the parties, but in the person, who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this respect was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race.” This set position of restrictions on love, for African Americans, Biracial Americans, and White Americans could not marry—as stated and supported by the government. The court ended by declaring, “since Africans are not considered to be citizens under the constitution, they do not have the civil rights to sue under a court of law—invalidating the claims and prosecutions made.” This court case further exemplified to the people how they viewed citizens and their stances on the positions that African Americans held in the United States. They disclosed that African Americans were considered to be property and nothing more—and anyone who should disagree, marry, or ordain such situations were considered to be unnatural, immoral, and should be punished.

Fredrick Douglass intelligently stated the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted to people of African descent—as they were not given such rights. As Douglas noted, “What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?” Furthermore stating, “The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me.” This shows the inconsistency put upon Douglass and the people he represented as the civil liberties grated to the people were not extended to him or his community. Douglass wittily remarked, “Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the same crimes will subject a white man to the like punishment.” This remark proves the hypocrisy put upon the African American community—while they are told they should be grateful and celebrate, they are at the same time punished unfairly and treated as property. Because the states continuously prove that segregation is still present in the courts, and other institutions, it proves that the founding principles are not granted to the people of African descent. Douglass passionately stated, “your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty…your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery…to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour.” He was revolted by the claims of morally just actions, freedom, and Christianity from those who enslaved, beat, tortured, and tore apart in the eyes of the Lord. The hypocrisy of their “American Lifestyle” is seen within the brutal acts upon slaves as well as the legal proceedings declaring people of African descent to not be citizens—to not be considered human, but property.

The Dred Scott Decision confirmed Douglass’s arguments revolving the fact of African Americans not receiving the same treatment, liberties, quality of life, abilities, and freedom as the rest of America. As the Court ruled, people of African descent, free or not, are not considered citizens—as previously supported by the original documentation of America. They even commented on the immoral and disturbing act of African Americans, Biracial Americans, and White Americans becoming married—as it was punishable crime. The court continuously stated how slaves and freed slaves were not considered to be at the same level as white people and since their ancestors had been slaves before, it did not make since to grant them the right of citizenship and the liberties that came along with it. Because the court declared African Americans to not be citizens—or considered human—Douglass’s arguments are sadly proven to be correct. As the America is not as bright and positive as it tried to portray. Not only did the courts deem them to not be citizens, but inadvertently expanded slavery into the free states. In conclusion, because the court served only to the White people of America, it solidified the sorrowfulness of Fourth of July, as it did not mean freedom, unity, and justice for all, but inequality, segregation, and injustice.