Original Document: Dred Scott v.

Sandford

Angela Sandoval

American Civilization 1700: MWF 9:00-9:50 a.m.

Original Document

Justice Taneys argument in deciding in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case was that Scott

was not a citizen because under law he was private property for being a slave. The evidence that
Justice Taney defended his case was that the Supreme Court could not take away private

property, because it was protected by the fifth amendment. Since he was considered private

property the government could not take away that title unless there was due process of law. I

do not find this evidence compelling because in the state they were in slavery was forbidden,

which means he should not be considered property. He cannot be considered for citizenship

because of his African American descent, but they could have let him have his freedom. I do not

agree with this statement because he is blaming how the Constitution was written out and how

people were interpreting the Constitution and not how his decision is not following the law in the

free state. In courts, today no person would be considered to be private property, a judge would

have dismissed a trial similar to this one.

The Circuit Court of the United States did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the

case. I do not think they would have been wrong in their opinion because the decision that

Justice Taney was not the right one. I do not think the decision that was made was a well thought

out one, which followed the laws of the certain state he was in. Even though congress did not

have the power to completely ban slavery, Scott was in a free state which meant slavery was

forbidden even though they could not be punished for it. When Scott gained his freedom, they

should not have been able to take it back. Under law there should not have been an option to

make Scott a slave, in a state that forbids slavery.

His former masters son knew that, the courts decision was not right, and he bought

Scotts freedom. He died about nine months later. 1 I do not believe the courts decision was a

correct one. Even though this case was argued twice and the same result was the same, they

1 "Dred Scott's fight for freedom." PBS. Accessed February 02, 2017.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html.
should have changed it. Scott was in a free state which means he couldnt be a slave. Dredd Scott

should have been able to gain his freedom and not go back to be marked as a slave.

With todays court system, Scott first wouldnt be marked as property, he would be able to live

free. One court trial that is compared to Dred Scott is Roe v. Wade. This case was about abortion,

should women by able to abort and when should they be able to abort. In the case the claim that

Abortion is the most violent act one human can commit against another (killing) 2. They were

saying that the fetus was the most voiceless and vulnerable class of human beings.

These two cases were compared because in the Dred Scott cases they were saying that slaves and

their descendants couldnt be citizens. They state that Roe abortion rule is like slavery, this treats

these class of humans as if they didnt matter. Dred Scott said that blacks are entitled to

constitutional protections and Roe said that unborn humans are not entitled to basic

constitutional protections for their lives. The court said that Dred Scott is just property to their

owner, which he compared to the unborn humans by saying that they are property to their

mothers. They mothers could do whatever they wanted with that unborn human. The main

platform for Roe is that a human being is not a human being if she is in the utero3.

In the Dred Scott case, it was said that he could not gain his freedom because he was the

property of someone. In the Roe case, they were wanted to give the message that they unborn

humans in a womens womb is not actually a human, and is just property. In both cases who the
2 "Roe v. Wade Is the Twentieth Century Equivalent of Dred Scott Case." CNS News.
January 23, 2015. Accessed April 07, 2017.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/lynn-wardle/roe-v-wade-twentieth-century-
equivalent-dred-scott-case.

3 "Roe v. Wade Is the Twentieth Century Equivalent of Dred Scott Case." CNS News.
January 23, 2015. Accessed April 07, 2017.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/lynn-wardle/roe-v-wade-twentieth-century-
equivalent-dred-scott-case.
owner is whether it was a slave owner or just the mother, they could do whatever they wanted

with the subject because it is their private property. In both cases the subjects were classified

under private property so the government could not do anything with them, they cant have a say

in someones private property.

Work Cited
 "Dred Scott's fight for freedom." PBS. Accessed February 02, 2017.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2932.html.

"Roe v. Wade Is the Twentieth Century Equivalent of Dred Scott Case." CNS News.

January 23, 2015. Accessed April 07, 2017. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/lynn-

wardle/roe-v-wade-twentieth-century-equivalent-dred-scott-case.