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)
