Aftermath Of Dred Scott: Constitutional Amendments

1112 Words3 Pages

With regards to the Declaration of Independence, that document is well-known for establishing that “[w]e hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Justice Taney noted that if the drafters of the Declaration of Independence intended this language to encompass individuals of African descent, the drafter’s actions in owning slaves was directly contrary. The proposition that Africans were citizens was untenable to Justice Taney because he believed that the Framers were “incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting.” Furthermore, Justice
Aftermath of Dred Scott: Constitutional Amendments
It is arguable that the Dred Scott decision led to the Civil War. After the North claimed victory during the Civil War, America entered into an era that has been dubbed the “Reconstruction Era.” Abraham Lincoln was the president at that time and he and his supporters had several well-defined goals for the country. One of those goals was to free all slaves and ensure that blacks had a future in America. President Lincoln was successful to some extent because he was able to sign the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Civil War redefined America because it led to three Constitutional Amendments, one of which was the Thirteenth Amendment. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. President Lincoln deemed the Thirteenth Amendment the “[k]ing’s cure for all the evils.” President Lincoln was also one of Dred Scott’s biggest opponents. He proposed that Dred Scott was based on assumed historical facts that were
However, the Court, in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), used formalism to undermine the purpose and goal of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Plessy, the Court considered whether a statute enacted by the State of Louisiana that required separate train cars for white and colored races was constitutional. The underlying facts of Plessy were that a man who was seven-eighths (7/8) white and one-eighth (1/8) black was instructed, but refused, to move from the white train car to the black train car. Consequently, he was removed from the train and incarcerated.
The constitutionality of Louisiana’s statute was challenged on the basis that it violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because the statute did not infringe upon the legal equality between the two races and did not re-establish a state of involuntary servitude, the Court held that the statute did not violate the Thirteenth Amendment. Further, the Court held that the statute did not abridge the privileges or immunities of the African-American, deprive him of his property without due process of law, nor deny him the equal protection of the laws. Accordingly, after Plessy, it was evident that African-Americans merely possessed legal equality; they did not possess social

More about Aftermath Of Dred Scott: Constitutional Amendments

Open Document