I’m arriving late to this event, but I wanted to add to the noise around President Bush’s comments on the Dred Scott decision (case). The Supreme Court ruled that Scott, a slave, was property and could not obtain the rights of citizenship.
Dred Scott’s case holds a unique place in American constitutional history as an example of the Supreme Court trying to impose a judicial solution on a political problem. The ruling, which helped to precipitate the Civil War, has long been considered one of the court’s great “self-inflicted” wounds. (Source)
Just One Minute (a blog I recommend you visit) does a round-up of comments round the blogosphere. More on this later. I want to keep it on the radar screen.
Addendum (reasonable hour): Now that I’ve had some caffeine, let’s delve a bit deeper into Dred Scott, shall we?
A case like Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856) is one of the reasons certain blacks are always angry. The anger is justifiable to a point. At the time, blacks, free or in bondage, were not considered citizens of the United States. I’ve linked to the decision — which is exceedingly wordy — so you can read it for yourselves. The synopsis I cited earlier is a good reference.
The facts: After his owner died, Dred Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom on the grounds that since he’d lived in free territory for a period of time, he was free. The Missouri courts rejected the argument. Title to Scott passed to John Sanford, who lived in New York. Scott decided to take his case to federal court. Under the Constitution, citizens from different states can sue each other in federal court (Article III, Section 2).
The issue:
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution….[W]hether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born of parents who had become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is used in the Constitution of the United States. (My emphasis)
The bottom line: NO, a black person could not be brought into the “political community.” While it’s been argued that under legal precedent in Missouri, Scott should have been a free man, the Supreme Court contended that blacks of African ancestry were not citizens of the U.S. Period.
But that wasn’t the final word. The pro-slavery judges wanted their intentions to be obvious. The court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which restricted slavery in the territories, was unconstitutional. In other words, the federal government did not have the power to restrict slavery in its territories. So don’t bother us anymore.
Republicans (the anti-slavery party) were outraged over the decision. Guess which party celebrated?
This is part of our history, as sour as it is. The court applied a strict interpretation of the Constitution (or so it thought), which is part of the reason blacks take issue with the strict constructionist view. If the court had been correct in its approach, the decision would have been correct. Before black liberals once again accuse me of hating myself and other blacks, let me clear things up.
Strictly construed or not, I do not believe the Constitution ever supported slavery. Although drafted by some who owned slaves, its principles of liberty are enduring, and the desire for liberty is universal, whether an individual actually lives in freedom or not.
It is a fact that before the Civil War, many believed the Constitution supported slavery. After the Civil War, the error was corrected by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Ironically, the Democrats, who once hated the Fourteenth Amendment because it gave blacks rights, love it today and use it often to support skin color preferences.
This is why I’m blogging about Dred Scott: during the debate, when asked about judicial nominees, Bush said he wouldn’t support the kind of justices who supported slavery. He said:
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.That’s a personal opinion. That’s not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we’re all — you know, it doesn’t say that. It doesn’t speak to the equality of America.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We’ve got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year — the next four years. And that’s the kind of judge I’m going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
Bush believes the court in Dred Scott did not use strict interpretation. I believe the court thought they did, but I’ll have to do some reading on this to come to a decision.
Left-wing journalists and bloggers are saying that Bush invoked Dred Scott as a coded message to us pro-lifers that he wouldn’t nominate justices who supported Roe v. Wade. Code words, they say, were used to hide his intentions from moderates who may be voting for him.
First of all, I think I may be siding with liberals on this one; either it was code or Bush just grabbed the only example he could think of.
Secondly, he should have said what he meant, whatever it was. No matter. The court in Roe found a non-existent right to privacy in the Constitution, and the court in Dred Scott found a non-existent right to human chattle.
Both decisions stink.
