...it was about state, personal and property rights along with political, economic and social differences of the time.Here's a few examples from what I've learned so far.Much of the Southern whites didn't own slaves, and if they did, the number of slaves and large plantations owned by Southern whites were small.And by this small percent dictated the political arena in Washington DC.Due to the nature of their main cash flow crop, cotton, the tariffs and other taxes placed by the federal government that helped the North and west, it hurt Southerners.Slavery was a big part of state and by the argument presented in the Dread Scott case, US Constitutional rights.By the Supreme Court decision, it wasn't just due the fact that he wasn't technically a person under US law at the time, he was considered someone else's property, regardless of what state he was in. And from my understanding, even though he was above the 36 30 parallel (Califorina didn't not help this ruling either) , it was made as pro-property ruling, due to the fact that no one could be denied their right to property.And legally, Dread Scott was someone's property regardless of what state he was in unless the State of Missouri said he wasn't.
- 19/06/2008
- 13:50:38
- Score: 0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.