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?
On this day 150 years ago, the Supreme Court’s answer to that question was, “No.†A negro descendant of slaves could not be a citizen of the United States.
One hundred and fifty years ago wasn’t that long ago. But when you consider how far the descendants of slaves have progressed — the rights, privileges, and immunities they enjoy, the “preferred minority†perch they occupy, their relative wealth compared to blacks in other countries — 150 years seem light-years away.
Born a slave in 1799, Dred Scott had traveled with his master to free territory. After his master died, Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that since he was living in free territory, he should be released from slavery. A state court rejected his claim.
Dred Scott v. Sandford eventually made it to federal court, where the issue was narrowed to whether the federal court had jurisdiction over the case and whether Scott had standing to sue. As expected, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott, as a slave, had no standing; therefore, the court had no jurisdiction. The court went on to declare the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional: Congress had no authority to restrict slavery. Slaves were property and slave owners had a right to travel anywhere in the U.S. with their property.
Tensions between pro- and anti-slavery factions increased, and the Civil War began several years after the Scott case. Afterward, blacks were declared free, and slavery in America was abolished. Congress introduced a series of legislation that prohibited slavery, declared all citizens equal before the law, and gave itself the power to enforce abolition.
In would take another 100 years for black Americans to reap the full benefits of post-Civil War legislation. And blacks have reaped those benefits a thousandfold. I should say, blacks have had opportunities to reap the benefits. Some have not, choosing to forgo opportunities that people fought and died to give them. They have the freedom to do that.
(Right now, 2007, is the best time it has ever been for black Americans, and I dare any country or system of government to come close to providing such opportunities.)
It gets sticky, however, when descendants of slaves use the bondage of their ancestors, long buried in the graves, as an excuse for failing to seize opportunities, preferring to blame the “legacy of slavery†for everything from their own immoral behavior to the disproportionately black prison population to the fact that three-quarters of black children in this country are born without the benefit of a stable, two-parent family.
Such people fail to see the hypocrisy of demanding to be treated equally, without regard to race, while demanding entitlements because of their race. They want people to see past their skin color, while making sure their skin color remains front and center.
Slavery was abolished 142 years ago, and government-mandated discrimination ended about 50 years ago, give or take a few years. Again, that was a short time ago, yet blacks as a group have come so far. But not far enough. Since slavery lasted about 250 years and blacks were less than full citizens for an additional 100 years, perhaps it will take another 350 years for the convenient “legacy of slavery†excuse to disappear, as well as the paranoia about “institutional racism.â€
[Note: Although I clarified the numbers in the comment section, I’ll note it here. I’m basing the “250 years” of slavery statement on various sources that date slavery on this continent to the early to mid 1600s. People can dispute whether that time frame is official or correct, but it’s the one I’m using. Some commenters pointed out that slavery didn’t exist in the U.S for 250 years because there was no U.S. until the late 1700s. I’m straining my eyes to find in the post where I said slavery existed in the U.S. for 250 years. If anyone finds the reference, do let me know.]
Three hundred and fifty years still wouldn’t be enough time to abolish excuses. It is human nature to point fingers, and that trait will never go away, even if 1,000 opportunities to succeed fell into one’s lap.
Addendum: Commmenter Jimmy reminded me about two of Walter Williams’s columns that mention the so-called legacy of slavery: “Family Secrets” and “Victimhood: Rhetoric or reality?”
From “Family Secrets” (emphasis added):
“One need not deny the existence of racial discrimination to ask the policy-relevant question: How much of what we see can be explained by discrimination? The black illegitimacy rate is close to 70 percent. Less than 40 percent of black children live in two-parent families. This produces devastating socioeconomic consequences, but is it caused by racial discrimination? Or, might it be a legacy of slavery? In the early 1900s, black illegitimacy was a tiny fraction of today’s rate. Roughly 75 percent, and in New York City 85 percent, of black children lived in two-parent households.
The fact of lower illegitimacy and more intact families, at a time when blacks were much closer to slavery and faced greater discrimination, suggests that today’s unprecedented illegitimacy and weak family structure has nothing to do with discrimination and slavery. It’s explained better by promiscuity and irresponsibility, and as such it’s not a civil rights problem.”
Commenter and blogger Big Mo attended a reenactment commemorating the Dred Scott decision.
More Dred Scott blogging from the Legal Times.
Related posts:
- Dreading Dred Scott
- A Secret History of the Democratic Party
- Democratic And Republican Platforms Through The Years
- Anti-Lynching Legislation
- Gospel of Oppression
- Black Immigrants “Work Harder”
Sources/Resources:
- Dred Scott: Heirs to history
- The Worst Supreme Court Decision Ever?
- Wrong way to teach about Dred Scott
- Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case (New York Times, March 6, 1857)
- Dred Scott Case Collection
- Dred Scott Case (Wikipedia)
Critics of President Lincoln point out that he did not free the slaves in the United States. The implication is that he was a hypocrite. But the truth is that he walked a tight rope indeed, for a similar set of judges sat on the supreme court and slavery was an issue that caused more American deaths than any other.
Other critics claim that Lincoln did not like blacks. Since when has like or dislike affected an individual’s sense of duty? Thoughts far from today when any rumor causes any number of spins.
But duty is one of the most sublime words in any language.
Politics is a dirty and nasty game. But as nasty as it can be, it keeps us from shooting each other most of the time. Would that we had more who feel a sense of duty to do the right as they have agonized over it instead of playing the game for personal gain.
Comment by Ted Moore — 03.06.07 @ 8:26 am
Duty and honor are indeed the real things, Ted. Excellent post.
It reminds me of the words of another Illinois Republican, Everett Dirksen, spoken just before the historic vote to break the anti-civil rights act filibuster led by the likes of Robert Byrd and Richard Russell.
Senator Dirksen: “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come. The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here.”
That was an expression of duty and honor.
Comment by redbeard — 03.06.07 @ 8:58 am
La Shawn, I admire you for your boldness in speaking out. I know it precipitates hate mail and undue criticism. It’s just beyond me that these ideas aren’t becoming apparent after all the years of trying things that have failed. My thoughts are that we have made the great strides in race relations and equality despite the efforts of the Democratic party to enslave black Americans through a political system of spoils and broken promises. Remember the legacy of the Democratic Party:
Indian Removal
Slavery
The Great Compromise
Jim Crow
KKK
and the destruction of the African American nuclear family.
Comment by circa bellum — 03.06.07 @ 9:08 am
“It is human nature to point fingers, and that trait will never go away, even if 1,000 opportunities to succeed fell into one’s lap.”
I wonder, if one personally witnessed a thousand ‘black people succeeding’ without demanding preferential treatment, would one still point a finger at ‘black people’?
Comment by JohnD — 03.06.07 @ 9:32 am
What Circa Bellum said.
Comment by batyah — 03.06.07 @ 9:41 am
Walter E. Williams makes a compelling argument against the “legacy of slavery” excuse in some of his articles, e.g. here, and here. He basically says that the kinds of things that are said to be results of slavery (illegitimacy, weak family structure, etc) are much worse now than they were several decades ago, when blacks were chronologically closer to slavery.
Comment by Jimmy — 03.06.07 @ 9:50 am
Thanks, circa!
Thanks for the links, Jimmy. I’d forgotten about those articles.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.06.07 @ 9:54 am
I had never heard the argument about how social problems in the black communities were less problematic the closer one gets toward slavery days. It is compelling.
America needs a leader who can speak to the considerable power and ability of black Americans instead of pandering to false victimhood. All America needs this as the bamboozled and flim-flammed in the black communities are not adding their contributions to our society as a whole. We all miss their contributions.
I wonder what holds back the impoverished white communities? There are not professional excusers for them. Can it be explained simply by alcohol, other drugs, educational failure, and illegitimacy?
We know the best predictors of poverty, but isn’t it interesting that there are no white victim vultures. Or are there?
Trey
Comment by Trey — 03.06.07 @ 10:21 am
>>Since slavery lasted 300+ years and blacks were less than full citizens for an additional 100 years, perhaps it will take another 400 years for the convenient “legacy of slavery†excuse to disappear, as well as the paranoia about “institutional racism.â€>>
I have a problem with your math here…
1865 - 1776 = 89 years from the establishment of the country as a political entity and the end of slavery. Granted that slavery existed before that time, but in fact, it existed after that time - even into the present - in other places. Did that affect the progress of blacks in other places? Did slavery exist in the Carribean countries, by the way?
One of the things I find really hard to understand is the attitude of some blacks towards islam. Muslims were among the earliest slave traders, and still own slaves, but I have heard it said by blacks that islam as a religion “seemed like coming home”. I don’t understand that.
Comment by suek — 03.06.07 @ 10:38 am
I’m referring to American slavery (i.e., on the continent of North America since America didn’t officially exist in the 1600s) only, from the 1600s to slavery’s official demise in 1865. And the 300 figure is too high. My miscalculation. It was closer to 250 years. Noted in the post.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.06.07 @ 10:41 am
A good post, La Shawn-I like to think that we as a country are going to leave the racism behind sooner than another 350 years. Of course, if the Lord hasn’t returned by then, I’d like to think that the United States will still be here for another 350 years.
Maybe I’m too optimistic.
Comment by Doug — 03.06.07 @ 11:25 am
La Shawn:
Another thing that bothers me about today’s activists is they continually refer to Trans-Atlantic slave trade as if it were the only slavery in history. Around 4 million people are trafficked each year in some kind of slavery. For all of the “never again” rhetoric and all of the blame slavery gets for today’s cultural problems, you’d think these activists would be working to solve today’s slavery problems. I rarely hear about human trafficking in the news and black activists hardly ever mention it. If today’s black cultural problems can be blamed on slavery, then why aren’t these people standing up for African children kidnapped and taken to Saudi Arabia to be camel jockeys or Asian women used in illegal brothels all over the world, for example? I think it’s more proof that slavery is an excuse for bad behavior and a way to stifle real discussions about cultural issues in the black community.
Comment by MK Anderson — 03.06.07 @ 11:25 am
La Shawn - Yesterday I got to “meet” one of me heroes: Frederick Douglass. Well, OK, it was actor Fred Morsell, portraying Douglass, at the Old St. Louis Courthouse as part of St. Louis’ recognition of the Dred Scott decision. I have a post here if you want to take a look.
http://hangrightpolitics.com/2007/03/05/meeting-a-hero/
Utterly fantastic, convincing and heart-breaking performance.
Comment by Big Mo — 03.06.07 @ 11:30 am
The prevailing view these days - other than that held by pro-lifers - seems to be that what a court rules, especially the Supreme Court, rises almost to the level of Gospel. But it’s important to remember that courts are populated by the same flawed, fallible people who populate the rest of the planet. Today in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled on the Dred Scott case. If you don’t remember Dred Scott from your American History class, his story is here. Short version: “In what is perhaps the most infamous case in its history, the court decided that all people of African ancestry — slaves as well as those who were free — could never become citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court.
Pingback by Pursuing Holiness — 03.06.07 @ 11:39 am
Sue K,
Slavery did exist in the Caribbean. I may have this wrong, but the history is that black slavery in American first showed up when colonists from Barbados brought it to South Carolina. In Barbados they were after sugar, but it didn’t work in SC so they switched to cotton.
Caribbean blacks arrived in the Caribbean via slavery. Haiti is known for being the first of the Caribbean countries to rid itself of it, and this was by an uprising of the black slaves, IIRC. I cannot speak about what the conventional wisdom is on the effects of slavery on blacks there. I can only go by my family, and slavery is not seen as a cause of any problems. From what I can tell that attitude is an American thing.
For example, my father is irritated by some of his countrymen coming to universities here and then taking that junk back home about how they need affirmative action and so on, even though black people are running the show back home. I have no idea how prevalent that phenomenon is, but apparently it’s new, like the use of the n-word there. (My mother was dismayed to find out black Americans introduced that word, when no one had used it in the 70’s when she was living there).
As far as the attitude of black Americans towards Islam being “their” religion–and I usually see this couched in terms of Christianity being the religion of slavery, whereas Islam isn’t (laugh or cry, your choice)–I can only attribute that to sheer ignorance. In many schools people just don’t learn that much about the slave trade apart from Europeans and their role in it. Slavery is taught from a Eurocentric slant, so Arab/Muslim slave traders in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe don’t get much mention. I think it’s probably also because the history of Africa itself isn’t always covered in detail in K-12, so many people don’t learn about Nubians being forced to send slaves to Arabia every so often, etc.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.06.07 @ 11:40 am
P.S. Sue K, regarding history lessons and Islam, the believers in this myth are not off the hook. If they don’t learn history in school, they could study the matter on their own if they so chose, as the libraries are free. Why they don’t do so, I can’t answer.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.06.07 @ 11:50 am
Thanks for the trackback La Shawn. I meant to add that Gateway Pundit also has a post that shows the Scotts’ tombstones in Calvary Cemetery:
“In memory of a simple man who wanted to be free.”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/150-years-ago-this-week-dred-scott.html
Comment by Big Mo — 03.06.07 @ 12:03 pm
You ask why the Black family is disappearing? I suggest it is because Blacks think so little of themselves that they end up looking at their spouses as trash.
OK, I’m white. What I see is that Blacks choose to demean themselves no matter what. Last night I clicked onto a show in HBO put on by a very popular (among Blacks) comic named: Katt Williams, the title of his show was, “Pimp.” The house was packed and was 100% Black. His show consisted of using the “n†word twice in each breath, the term “mother f**ker at least once per breath with some appropriate adjectives to further describe both terms. All women were called “bitches.†In each and every case he was talking about Black men and women. The Black men and women in the audience were rolling in the aisles and applauding.
And I thought to myself, “no wonder they are going nowhere.†No other race or religion sees its collective selves in such low terms. I think that Katt may be on to something, but it’s something he doesn’t recognize.
Oh, was he funny? Yeah, a few times, but I turned it off because it was so hypocritical.
Comment by Howard Veit — 03.06.07 @ 12:14 pm
Comment 18: Good Lord I’m tired of white people trying to tell me what I think about myself. But I digress.
LB: This was an informative and insightful post.
I actually think the worst legacy of slavery is the fact that unfortunately we still have these types of discussions.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 03.06.07 @ 12:31 pm
Slavery did not exist in the United States of America for 250 years. It existed from 1787 until it was abolished about 80 years later. Before that, the United States was a colony of Great Britain, and responsibility for the introduction of slavery and its cultivation in this country should be laid at its door.
Comment by Kim — 03.06.07 @ 12:31 pm
Thank you for your post on Dred Scott, You are right blacks have come a long way and we are happy about it. Thank you for putting into words what I have thought and not been able to say.
Comment by Bill L Smith — 03.06.07 @ 12:44 pm
Kim-
Before that, the United States was a colony of Great Britain, and responsibility for the introduction of slavery and its cultivation in this country should be laid at its door.
The abolition movement also originated in Great Britain in the mid-18th century. Do a Google on William Wilberforce.
Comment by Radish — 03.06.07 @ 12:58 pm
Kim, England also abolished the slave trade and slavery before the US, and it did not take a civil war to do so, just one man and 40 years. Go look up William Wilberforce when you get a chance.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.06.07 @ 1:07 pm
Of course Dred Scott was a “dreadful”(no pun intended) decision. However I’d like to take a different slant. This case always brings to mind the holy tenet of the liberals-”stare decisis” precedent as it were. They only want it to come into play when decisions such as Roe v. Wade come up. What if there had been an opening on the Supreme court after the Dred Scott decision had come down. If we had the same members of Congress would Dodd, Teddy, Feinstein, Boxer etal grill the nominee on “stare decisis”. We know the answer for these hypocritics. They selectivly apply their”tenets of faith” to justify their positions, sacrificing the application of consistent thought.
Comment by Dennis — 03.06.07 @ 1:22 pm
#18. Said:
“And I thought to myself, “no wonder they are going nowhere.†No other race or religion sees its collective selves in such low terms.”
May I ask, who are you saying is going ‘nowhere’?
Moreover, Howard, what I don’t understand is how do you get to call some ‘black’ American faces on a (what reads to be)trashy TV show a whole ‘race’?
What makes you claim that blacks as a ‘race’ are ‘going nowhere’?
I also posit that the idiots who buy into trashy ’street’ and ‘gangsta’ culture do *not* regard their ‘collective selves’ in low terms at all. If anything ‘they’ regard themselves with egotistical (and woefully misplaced) pride and arrogance.
We are not speaking of a ‘race’ here, we are speaking of an American subculture that ingratiates itself and imposes itself onto a stereotypical concept of urban/urbane inanity. It can call itself ‘black’ all it likes, but it’s as ‘black’ as a white nationlist is ‘white’. i.e. it doesn’t speak for other ‘black people’, it speaks for it’s selfish self.
Whatever the excuse for such self-styled ‘gangstas’ (thugs), it’s no doubt as hollow as the excuse for calling that ‘gangsta’(thug) and his sorry ilk a ‘race’.
Regards,
John
Comment by JohnD — 03.06.07 @ 1:22 pm
Greg,
In support of your point, I never read this (but plan to), but Adam Hochschild has a book about just why it didn’t take a civil war to get slavery abolished in Britain. According to him, IIRC, the average Brit could relate to the slaves because the slaves were kidnapped and forced to work, and in early 19th century Britain, men risked being kidnapped and forced to work in the navy whenever they were in port towns. He of course mentions Wilberforce as well. It might be a good read.
*puts on nerd hat* In one of Paul Johnnson’s books, he mentions that Alexander Hamilton wanted to free the slaves during the Revolutionary War. After reading that I can’t help but wonder what could have been.
Kim, while Thomas Jefferson (!) argued your exact point, I don’t believe the slavers should be left off the hook. I grant that slavery was seen as normal back in the day, but even so, the colonists did not have to continue the practice, especially in the form they did. Some of the northern states had slavery before abolishing it, and, as I mentioned, Alexander Hamilton wanted to see it gone, too. The slavers had a choice, even if they thought they didn’t.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.06.07 @ 1:26 pm
Tyrian,
Out of sight out of mind applies here. Until the English really understood how bad the slaves had it, they could not care less. Plus the slavers had tons of influence in Parliment so there were plenty of obsticales for Wilberforce to overcome. If the movie Amazing Grace is playing where you are,, go see it, it’s based on Wilberforce and his quest to end Slavery in England. In addition (my theory here) power in England was centralized in the Parliment and there was no state’s rights vs. federal rights struggle like the US was going through. England had already gone through those growing pains for the most part and it’s style of government was pretty much set in stone, so the likelyhood of violence was much lower. That is an oversimplification but I don’t want to cure insomnia with this reply.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.06.07 @ 1:40 pm
This kind of “conversation” keeps me awake, Greg, which is why I comment on blogs
I plan to see the Wilberforce movie this weekend. I suspect your hypothesis is correct, though. My hypothesis about why slavery continued after the RW in America is that there was no way to preserve the union if the issue had been forced just then. If the northerners had pressed the matter, the south might have stayed by itself, and slavery might have lasted longer. Northerners having to live with it “in sight” meant tension, which meant a fight later. So many of the major compromises (like Missouri) in Congress kept the issue in view, and led up to the civil war. I honestly believe the CW was inevitable from the very beginning of America’s founding, before the ink was dry on the constitution (see the 3/5 compromise).
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.06.07 @ 1:54 pm
I agree, Tyrian. I saw the advertisements for the movie as well and plan to go see it too.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 03.06.07 @ 2:12 pm
>>Caribbean blacks arrived in the Caribbean via slavery. Haiti is known for being the first of the Caribbean countries to rid itself of it, and this was by an uprising of the black slaves, IIRC.>>
Have you any idea (about)what year this uprising took place?
>>I cannot speak about what the conventional wisdom is on the effects of slavery on blacks there. I can only go by my family, and slavery is not seen as a cause of any problems. From what I can tell that attitude is an American thing.>>
Maybe the difference is the uprising? They “took” what they felt they deserved, and hence felt like they had a certain amount of power? Whereas US blacks were “given” their freedom, and so are still trying to feel “worthy”? Or maybe those who were a part of uprising just had a different temperment than those who didn’t rebel??? Has any identification of various black tribes and their placements ever been traced? Sure raises some interesting things to consider…
Comment by suek — 03.06.07 @ 2:16 pm
I don’t know, plenty of blacks fought on the Union side during the civil war, I’d say they earned it.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.06.07 @ 2:38 pm
La Shawn
It amazes me that there are so many African Americans who do not see the connection between Dred Scott and Roe vrs. Wade. In both cases the victums of bad “official” decisions were guilty of only helplessness, deemed mere property of a slaveowner or mother, rather than given rights as “persons” in their own right.
Comment by LeRoy Curtis — 03.06.07 @ 2:49 pm
The Haitian revolution started in 1791. Led by Touissaint L’Ouverture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution
This was one of the first things I learned about in the black history books my mother bought me.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 03.06.07 @ 2:55 pm
I’m aware of the abolitionist movement and the abolition of slavery in England before here. I don’t think I explained myself well, and I apologize for that.
My point is that the international community excuses every form of abuse on the part of countries that were once colonies. Countries except the Unites States, that is. While the founding fathers were: trying to recover from a devastating war, and the effects of colonialism, cobble together a cohesive government, establish a common currency, open banks, and keep states from going to war with each other, they were also supposed to instantly abolish slavery. Their failure to do so, in comparison to England’s more progressive movement, is viewed in a complete vacuum. Was it morally wrong? Of course. But England had an established government and had not just fought a war on its soil. What is the excuse of Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and China?
What drives me bonkers are the double standards, the tendency to view historical events in a vacuum, and the knee-jerk demonization of the United States at any opportunity. As LaShawn mentioned, why aren’t people today in all of the “civil rights” movements fighting the current trafficking of 4 million people? Because they can’t make a buck off it, that’s why. Because they get more mileage out of criticizing this country.
Comment by Kim — 03.06.07 @ 2:57 pm
Kim, all becomes clear now.
Tiffany, I feel downright obligated (in a good way) to see that movie. I want movies like that to succeed, so that more of them can be made.
Sue K, the website of the Haitian embassy says they won the rebellion in 1803. I recall that Simon Bolivar (for whom Bolivia is named) went to them for help in financing his fight for independence, and Haiti agreed to do so on the condition that he free Bolivia’s slaves, so he did. In a history class, I gathered that the Haitians rebelled because they had paid attention to the French Revolution, and felt “liberté, fraternité, egalité” should apply to them, too.
I’m not Haitian myself, but in the Anglophone part of the Caribbean, slavery ended there when it was also outlawed in Britain, so not every slave had to fight for their freedom, so I don’t think that accounts for the difference in attitudes.
I suspect that part of the reason for the differences is that again, with black people in charge of the countries, the “effects of slavery†is removed as a scapegoat. I’m not sure how valid that belief is, though, when I see that even in a black-run city in American that that particular scapegoat still seems to be alive and kicking. It’s just my hypothesis. I want to emphasize that I agree that scapegoating is a universal behavior, it’s just that I also think that particular scapegoat is a mental shackle that I see too often among my fellow Americans.
It’s my belief that the worst problems plaguing black communities are of a more recent vintage. Before the 1950’s, one of my relatives had a shotgun marriage when an older man got her pregnant (she was a teenager), nowadays, people don’t blink an eye when a teenaged girl gets pregnant, even if the father is a man (as opposed to a teenaged boy).
To give a more well-known example, Oprah said that when her father found out her mother was pregnant with her, he took care of her mother even though he didn’t know for sure if he was the father (I think they were unmarried), on the grounds that he knew he could be the father and therefore had a duty. Values shifted, and now men don’t have to take responsibility for what they do, and are no longer publicly shamed when they don’t take responsibility. I’ll add women also dropped the ball, just to be clear.
Comment by Tyrian Purple — 03.06.07 @ 3:16 pm
I dont if anyone has been watching this but don’t you think Al Sharpton is making too much a deal of the fact that his great grandfater was owned by one of Strom Thurmond’s ancestors.
Gettin to be a little much isnt it?
Comment by lukeNC — 03.06.07 @ 4:27 pm
Interesting fact about Dred Scott: one of his descendents lives here in the St. Louis area; so do the decendents of the slave owners who brought Dred and Harriet Scott to St. Louis, AND the lawyer who took the Scott’s case to court.
The descendents didn’t know about each other until recently.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/35EB908B9188CA4286257296000A247A?OpenDocument
Linked to it this morning under “Sources/Resources.” ;)- Admin
Comment by Big Mo — 03.06.07 @ 5:16 pm
The race issue in America is extremely complex, and it appears that many Americans spend an enormous amount of time and energy dancing around the reality that it exist today. In France, that is the main issue. We like to think that we are a color-blind society, but in reality we are not. We believe (as many Americans) that one can have success through hard-work, strong family and education; and while that is VERY true, we can’t ignore another component to succes in France — discrimination.
We had to acknowledge that what we want (a color blind society) and what we are as a French society are two different realities. The color-blind society is a myth in France, but to its credit, the French acknowledge that it has a problem with racism. THIS doesn’t excuse what we firmly believe: self-determination, hard-work, family and education. But we understand the road to success is not the same for all French citizens.
I think Americans should both advocate self-empowerment and the elimination of racism. I believe you can do both.
Racism is such an ugly stain on a country.
Comment by Paige — 03.06.07 @ 5:26 pm
Kim:
(#34) Actually I mentioned the current trafficking problem, but I’m glad you got the point.
Knowing what I do about modern day slavery, my blood boils when I see civil rights activists bringing up the Trans-Atlantic slave trade as if it was still ongoing. These same activists give a pass to the porn industry, Muslims, and African governments, who actively participate in kidnapping and enslaving people, today, not hundreds of years ago.
You’re right, it’s all about making money, but it’s also about political power. To lug the slavery cross around is disingenuous to the progress that has been made since then. I guess there are enough people who buy into that victim stuff; I mean, they do have an audience. However, if you look at the change in U.S. culture since the Civil War, in the big scheme of things, it’s an amazing conversion. Since the 1960s, the change in culture is phenomenal. Sure, there is work to be done, but we are also far removed from police with fire hoses and the National Guard called to prevent children from entering a school.
So I go back to what I said before. You can tell how genuine today’s civil rights activists are by the causes they take on. If they wallow in the past and try to take an audience with them, they need to be called on it. It’s time they acknowledge our cultural progress and move on to the next thing.
Comment by MK Anderson — 03.06.07 @ 5:42 pm
Kim,
No problem most of us are aware of the problems associated with online communication. I figured it was better to be Captain Obvious than make assumptions that are wrong. It’s hard to be consise and make several points in one post at the same time.
Comment by Greg Laurich — 03.06.07 @ 5:43 pm
As LaShawn mentioned, why aren’t people today in all of the “civil rights†movements fighting the current trafficking of 4 million people? Because they can’t make a buck off it, that’s why. Because they get more mileage out of criticizing this country.
I guess I’ll lump that comment with ignorance.
There are many people who are part of the “civil rights” movement who are also involved in slavery issues of today. Dick Gregory, Kwaisi Mfume, Joe Madison, and Danny Glover come to mind.
And I thought to myself, “no wonder they are going nowhere.â€
Frankly, if you thought, you wouldn’t have said it because demographic statistics don’t support your comment.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.06.07 @ 9:36 pm
Darkstar, you wrote “Frankly, if you thought, you wouldn’t have said it because demographic statistics don’t support your comment.”
What statistics do you have to support otherwise?
Comment by batyah — 03.07.07 @ 1:53 am
Suek,
I hate to disagree with you this strongly but american blacks were not “given” their freedom. It may be true that a large majority of those supporting civil rights were white. But the fact is that the great majority of courageous efforts in the face of danger were made by black people. A small number of whites (with a solid nucleus of jews) captured the admiration of much of the nation. A number several orders of magnitude greater toiled without notice except in the case of large demonstrations. Those large and widely noticed parades were considerably less dangerous than the day to day heroism of people with hope for the future of their children.
We can only be stricken by the tragedy of this epic effort being discarded by the “white man’s burden, part 2″ that treated a race as retarded children who needed to be given things they could not earn for themselves.
They earned their freedom. Make no mistake, it was no gift.
Comment by Ted Moore — 03.07.07 @ 8:34 am
Ted, you’ve stated well the opinion of most conservatives, giving blacks credit for the same degree of intelligence, self-determination, and personal responsibility as any other citizens.
It has been liberals, certainly for the last 40 or 50 years, who have operated on the insulting premise of blacks being helpless dependents.
Comment by redbeard — 03.07.07 @ 8:40 am
I just found this website because it was criticized on another blog. I believe that there has been great progress in this country on race issues and that integration is part of the solution to racism. This web site seems to share my opinions. I am an African American conservative who is in an interracial marriage.
Dred Scott was a of mixed race and he still experienced full racism back then. Today with the integration of families racism is steadily losing power.
Comment by Interracial Power — 03.07.07 @ 10:16 am
This kind of thing just breaks my little libertarian heart. When you think about Scott, Douglass, Washington, the Tuskeegee (sorry for the spelling) airmen, King, etc. etc.–all the brains and passion and talent that they put into freeing their people and all they suffered so their children could have a chance to show what they could do on a somewhat level playing field–all to have black folk to betray their ancestors, run away from their own progeny and sell themselves and their families to the Dems for a few welfare checks. What a waste.
Comment by Lucinius Antonninus — 03.07.07 @ 10:26 am
Interracial Power - Welcome to LBC. It’s quite joyful to me when readers find my blog through bloggers who criticize me or allow others to bad-mouth me in comment threads. They’d all be disappointed to know that more than a few loyal and respectful readers and commenters have found me through those channels, I’m sure.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.07.07 @ 10:53 am
Apropos Term Limits
Another regrettable Supreme Court decision–Dred Scott v. Sandford–was remembered yesterday, on its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary….
Trackback by Joe's Dartblog — 03.07.07 @ 11:11 am
#43…
You seem to consider the civil rights movement as the beginning of black freedom. It was not. Slavery ended in 1865. It was the result of the Civil War, and while it’s true that many blacks served - on both sides - they were not any part of the political actions that resulted in their freedom. It is a result of that war that blacks were _given_ their freedom from slavery.
The Civil Rights movement was a different issue and political movement. I agree that blacks were - by that time - politcally active and were certainly a major part of the movement. I also agree that although freedom was won as a result of the Civil War, equality was not, and the Civil Rights movement was instrumental in bringing about much of the change that has resulted in equality today. On the other hand, the Civil Rights movement was also responsible for some of the benefits that have resulted in broken black families, with the government as the sole supporter instead of a husband/father.
In some respects, it’s like the union movement - there’s no doubt that initially, the workers had _no_ power. Like a truly abused person, they couldn’t even imagine the possibility of “demanding” benefits. Conditions were improved, _then_ they formed unions which had the power to “demand”. Today, I think unions have become detrimental - their time has passed, although initially they were sorely needed. I think the Civil Rights mentality is much the same. First the freedom - but no power. Then the power to demand. Eventually, the abuse of others to satisfy demands, and finally, equality which allows each individual to succeed or fail on his/her own. I think we’re reaching the end of stage 3. I think it will take another generation or even two to reach the final stage.
Comment by suek — 03.07.07 @ 11:54 am
“It has been liberals, certainly for the last 40 or 50 years, who have operated on the insulting premise of blacks being helpless dependents.”
Redbeard, that would be true if it wasn’t for the fact that ‘blacks’ aren’t so helpless or dumb to be manipulated by ‘white liberal elites’ as is constantly claimed.
I personally don’t see things, if you’ll excuse me, so ‘black and white’. ‘liberals’ aren’t racist, ‘conservatives’ aren’t racist, and ‘blacks’ (can someone tell me what ‘blacks’ are, collectively? Anyone, DO they exist?) aren’t a flock of weaklings to be manipulated by evil whites of any political stripe.
*sigh*
Individuals, on the other hand…
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 11:58 am
Suek,
While there is no doubt the Civil War led to the end of slavery, the idea that blacks themselves were not instrumental in securing their own freedom is inaccurate. The blacks of that era made the case for themselves and fought to preserve that freedom.
I can’t denigrate the Civil Rights Movement. Much of the negative trends that started to develop among Blacks are a direct result of the War on Poverty under LBJ’s presidency. How intertwined that may have been with the Civil Rights Movement itself is something I don’t know. But, it has to be remembered there were many different facets of the movement as well as philosophies ranging from civil disobedience to violent revolution.
Of course, there is the question of whether or not integration was good or bad for blacks. I believe it was good, as a whole. But, for retail business, it was ruinous. So, it’s still a work in progress. I think race is becoming more irrelevant every day. It’s easy to bemoan that more progress hasn’t been made. But, this could be said about anything. Where’s my fusion-powered car?
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 12:26 pm
JohnD, that word “individuals” is the key. If only liberals would use it more often.
Angel, I remember, as a kid in the ’50s, being promised a flying car. Where is it? I demand to know.
Comment by redbeard — 03.07.07 @ 12:40 pm
I think use the word “individuals” quite often. But, it can’t be selective. Either you believe an individual and not his racial cohort is responsible for his/her own behavior or you believe there is some group or genetic predisposition to social pathologies. I have always believed the first and that is why I post comments that reflect my belief.
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 1:48 pm
By the way, Redbeard…
The flying car is a reality. http://www.moller.com
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 1:50 pm
Angel, it’s not being selective at all. One can believe that an individual is resp. for his/her own behavior and also believe that an individual’s racial group’s shared traits manifest themselves in the aggregate. Without getting into genetics, one can say that blacks as a group commit disproportionately more crime than other groups while still maintaining that individuals are resp. for committing crimes. You’ll notice that when a black individual is convicted of a crime, the entire black race doesn’t join him in prison. You make the mistake other black liberals tend to make (at least on this blog) when they criticize those who believe in individuality while recognizing group traits or propensities.
Comment by La Shawn — 03.07.07 @ 2:08 pm
LaShawn,
Of course, the entire race doesn’t join the criminal in physical prison. But, when others extrapolate those folks to make blanket judgments about an entire race, we are in a psychic prison.
I’ve been accused of trying to gloss over negative behavior. I don’t want to do that. It’s to the detriment of everyone to ignore a real problem(s). I just don’t want the criminal to be the face of the black “community”.
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 2:16 pm
“JohnD, that word “individuals†is the key. If only liberals would use it more often.”
Redbeard, that made me chuckle, another example of the self-destroying staement
I often catch myself saying “I wish that (insert group) would not generalize so much!
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 2:23 pm
“Without getting into genetics, one can say that blacks as a group commit disproportionately more crime than other groups”
What are ‘blacks’ (as a group)?
Please, someone?
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 2:29 pm
Also, the other question up for debate is what constitutes black. Lately, it seems the new crusade among some conservatives is to take away the “blackness” of some people. It seemed to start with Halle Berry’s Oscar win and has continued with Rush Limbaugh’s description of Barack Obama as a “Halfrican-American.” Ironically enough, Ann Coulter had plenty to say about Ms. Berry.
I’m Hispanic, black, white and anything you can think of, but I self-identify as black. So, what is the goal? Personally, I think the goal is to cause a split between blacks and mixed-race folks along political fault lines. Any thoughts?
As a mixed race person, it seems you’re in a better position to answer the question. Here’s another: why do you self-identify as black? I’m sure that’s a heck of a lot more interesting than anything we have to say. - Admin
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 3:12 pm
>>It’s to the detriment of everyone to ignore a real problem(s).>>
So what _are_ the “real prolem(s)”?
Comment by suek — 03.07.07 @ 3:18 pm
“why do you self-identify as black?”
That’s exactly what I was thinking….
Comment by JohnD — 03.07.07 @ 3:24 pm
Basically, it’s easier. I don’t want to be seen as using the rest of my background as a way to hide my “blackness” , the most obvious thing about me besides my dashing good looks.
I find a lot of people in my circle do this and I find it disheartening because I don’t want to deny the part of my family whose struggle was just a little bit harder.
Suek,
I think the real problems are discussed enough in detail on this blog by others. If you read the paper, watch TV, or live in this country, you know what they are.
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 3:28 pm
And it’s not like the question comes up, I just don’t do anything to dissuade anyone of the notion.
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 6:38 pm
I hide the fact that my ancestry is part French. I don’t mind being called a Mick or a Kraut, but I just can’t take being called a Frog.
Actually, I like to claim I’m Swiss, because it’s safer. Got the red pocketknife and everything.
Comment by redbeard — 03.07.07 @ 7:32 pm
Redbeard,
That’s good. Did you see the flying car?
Comment by Angel — 03.07.07 @ 8:04 pm
In #42: What statistics do you have to support otherwise?
Poverty Rate:
2005: 24.7%
1966: 41.8%
1959: 55.1%
Educational Attainment:
2005
High school +: 80%
Some college +: 44.7%
Bachelors +: 17.3
1966
High school graduate: 28.5%
4 years college: 2.3%
5 years+ college: 1.3%
To find the source, go to Black Stats and follow the links there.
Comment by DarkStar — 03.07.07 @ 9:26 pm
Angel, the car is on my Christmas list for next year.
Comment by redbeard — 03.08.07 @ 9:27 am
Redbeard,
I’ve been reading Popular Mechanics for about 25 years and Moller has had a feature article at least yearly since then (maybe more). Another cool item is the Segway Centaur. http://www.segway.com/products/centaur/
Comment by Angel — 03.08.07 @ 11:46 am
I still haven’t figured out a use for the two-wheeled Segway, let alone a four-wheeled one.
Hey, we need a referee’s decision here; is this the worst case of thread drift ever?
Comment by redbeard — 03.08.07 @ 12:06 pm
….Yeah…so…anyway, Redbeard. Black power! Are we back on track yet?
That was funny.
- Admin
Comment by Angel — 03.08.07 @ 12:25 pm
Comment by redbeard — 03.08.07 @ 12:35 pm
Well, my other choice was “The white man is the devil!” But, that’s actually the title of a new album by Boston rapper Slaine. I didn’t want to run into any copyright issues. Slaine is white and from South Boston, by the way.
Comment by Angel — 03.08.07 @ 12:43 pm
LaShawn and Redbeard
If you’ll indulge me for one more. Here’s the Segway Centaur in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l486tKKIifY
Tell me you don’t want one.
Comment by Angel — 03.08.07 @ 1:03 pm
Nah. But I’ll take the Harley in the right lane here: http://www.nhra.com/2006/events/race03/photos/sunday/Photo8.htm
Comment by redbeard — 03.08.07 @ 3:52 pm
I think you can make a strong case that in those states that did not outlaw slavery in 1776, slavery was extended, not initiated, and so the history of slavery in states like Virginia, which was settled in 1607, extends back to about 1630 (if, in fact, slavery, in distinction to time-limited bonded servitude, began in the 1630s.)
There is confusion if you say slavery in the United States goes back to 1630. Before the 13th amendment, slavery was only a result of United States’ policy in Washington D.C. Otherwise it was governed by the policies of the several states. At least in the original 13.
The situation was complicated again in the territories. Jefferson, although he could not bring himself to free his own slaves, insured that slavery would be outlawed in the Northwest Territories. There followed the Missouri Compromise, and it really is doubtable that congress had the authority to determine whether slavery might be allowed to exist in those areas that passed out of territoriality and into statehood. The Dread Scott decision confounded this problem, and in addition to its repugnance consequentially, was probably bad constitutional interpretation, because before the 13th amendment, each state had the authority to determine who was free within its own borders.
Over such a grave question of fundamental human freedom, a civil war had to come, because the branch of government that was entrusted with interpreting the Constitution failed in its duty.
Comment by Gilbert Brahms — 03.08.07 @ 10:33 pm
Dread Scott was also wrong in conflating “person held in bondage” with “property.” Once it is admitted in law that slaves are persons*, there is no logical way they can be regarded treated merely as property, even if they have restricted rights. The medieval concept of serfdom recognized as much.
*A person is represented in congress, even if he counts only 3/5th. No piece of property, be it land or house or horse, can be represented in congress.
Comment by Gilbert Brahms — 03.08.07 @ 10:47 pm
You mentioned that 150 years is not that long. I agree (although I might have not done so when I was much younger).
Here is my take on it not being so long ago.
I am sixty-three years old and was lucky enough to know my grandfather. He was born in 1891 so likely knew people who had been young adults at the time of the Dred-Scott Decision.
That means that only one full lifetime separates us from the days when American slaves were a fact of life.
Not so long ago, indeed.
Thank you for your work and thoughtful insight.
Woody
Comment by Oran Woody — 03.10.07 @ 10:27 pm
#49,
The path for freedom has been a struggle for long enough that it would be difficult even to define differences. One of those important events was when the plebes forced the roman aristocrats to write down the law. Another was the american revolution. Yet another important step started in England in 1787 and gained impetus during our civil war. The Dred Scott decision put it clearly enough in black and white that the opposition coalesced together to take another step in the struggle for freedom. The struggle continues today.
The union movement in the 30’s was also a tool towards freedom. Alas, today the unions want to do away with the secret ballot.
The passage of the right to vote act most surely was a clear step in the good fight. The passage of the “Great Society” welfare bill can be seen in retrospect as a well meaning mistake.
Fifty years from now we will see much more clearly if the war in Iraq was a step towards freedom or a well meant mistake.
Comment by Creative dude — 03.11.07 @ 8:38 pm