Was the Dred Scott reference code for Roe v. Wade?

The Court is there to interpret the law, not to write it, and the Dred Scott decision did just that - in impeccable wording, if I may add.

Btw, the 3/5 number was there to protect slaves, so that if 2 of them testified about a crime, for example, the total would count more than the unsupported word of one citizen.

0 Replies

C'mon, Helen. The three-fifths number was there so that the slave states could get dispropotionate representation in Congress. It was originally proposed that slaves be counted as part of the general population of a state for purposes of aportioning the number of Representatives to be elected from any given state. This in spite of the fact that slaves had no rights, let alone the franchise of suffrage. When the Northern states bridled at this notion, a compromise was reached -- slaves would be counted as one-fifth of a man. The South still got a larger chunk of representation in Congress than there were actual voters, but the worth of a black man was reduced to that of one-fifth of a man. Protecting slaves had nothing to do with this decision.

0 Replies

Andrew - motives may be discussed ad infinitum, but the letter of the law as it read at the time cannot be in doubt. That was my only point.

0 Replies

Quote:

Btw, the 3/5 number was there to protect slaves, so that if 2 of them testified about a crime, for example, the total would count more than the unsupported word of one citizen.

My math must be fuzzy for two people to testify against one and have it count as 1 and 1/5th.

0 Replies

3/5+3/5=6/5=1+1/5>1

Edited to add detail

0 Replies

At least both of you seem to realize that 6/5 is bigger than 1 <G>

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Btw, the 3/5 number was there to protect slaves, so that if 2 of them testified about a crime, for example, the total would count more than the unsupported word of one citizen.

Manifestly untrue. Slaves were normally not allowed to testify at all in criminal trials. Merry Andrew is correct: the three-fifths clause was designed to increase Southern congressional representation, nothing more.

0 Replies

"Intended",or "designed", Joe, isn't what the letter of the law said though - why this one point seems so difficult to grasp is a mystery.

0 Replies

Joe --

This thread is teaching me that I know too little about the institution of 19th century slavery in America and its legal underpinnings. Could you point me to a reference so I can brush up on my knowledge? I would appreciate the opportunity.

-- T.

0 Replies

Thomas: As one might expect, there aren't a lot of lawyers practicing slave law these days, so there isn't much need for books on the subject. Indeed, I think you'd be more likely to find books on Roman slave law than on antebellum American slave law. One book that seems to cover most aspects of slave law is Slavery, the Civil Law, and the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Another book is Mark Tushnet's Slave Law in the American South, which uses a single case study to examine the legal aspects of the entire institution of slavery. And Southern Slavery and the Law, 1619-1860 seems to be a comprehensive work. You might also want to search through the discussion threads at H-LAW.

HofT: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. The three-fifths clause was not intended to help slaves, it was not designed to help slaves, and it did not have the effect of helping slaves.

0 Replies

Joe - perhaps an example from a recent court decision will make it clear to you. I wonder if you could comment on a legal argument, made on another thread on this site:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=33597&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=560&sid=897d54fcd0c41452ca2b6b75b8dfd39e

If you're a lawyer, especially, your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

0 Replies

P.S. the link posted above is to page 57 of the thread, and briefly reviewing the 2 following pages might be helpful.

Thanks in advance!

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Joe - perhaps an example from a recent court decision will make it clear to you. I wonder if you could comment on a legal argument, made on another thread on this site

I am even more mystified than before, HofT. How does a case involving whales relate to the Dred Scott case or the three-fifths clause of the constitution? Are you suggesting that the status of whales as litigants is, in some way, similar to the status of slaves under the antebellum constitution?

0 Replies

You understand I express no legal opinion here, Joe, being unqualified to do so - am a mathematician by training.

But yes, as a citizen I do have the right to suggest that the status of intelligent creatures (slaves then, dolphins now) cannot be equated to that of things under the law, and that they shouldn't be denied representation in the courts.

What did you think of the court's decision in this case?

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

You understand I express no legal opinion here, Joe, being unqualified to do so - am a mathematician by training.

But yes, as a citizen I do have the right to suggest that the status of intelligent creatures (slaves then, dolphins now) cannot be equated to that of things under the law, and that they shouldn't be denied representation in the courts.

You certainly have that right. As of now, however, the status of whales, dolphins, and other sea creatures is as the court describes it: they have no right to sue in federal court.

HofT wrote:

What did you think of the court's decision in this case?

I haven't read the decision, but, from the brief description in the linked article, I think it was eminently sensible.

0 Replies

So true, Joe: I agree with you that the decision was eminently sensible.

Further, it was exemplary in adhering to the letter of the law.

EXACTLY AS DRED SCOTT. Now, do you see my point?!

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

So true, Joe: I agree with you that the decision was eminently sensible.

Further, it was exemplary in adhering to the letter of the law.

EXACTLY AS DRED SCOTT. Now, do you see my point?!

No, I'm afraid your point is as elusive as ever.

As I've mentioned before, a good argument can be made that the Dred Scott decision was correct. Now, if you're saying that Dred Scott was a bad decision because it permitted slavery to continue, I'd argue that you were missing the point. Dred Scott didn't allow slavery to continue: the constitution allowed slavery to continue.

0 Replies

I seem to recall reading somewhere that Justice Taney, who wrote the Court's opinion in the Dred Scott case, was himself an anti-slavery adherent who wrote the decision from a strictly constructionist viewpoint. It has been suggested that his true aim in wording it as he did was to bring attention to the fact that the Constitution needed to be amended. Few, however, saw the absurdity in denying the status of humanity to chattel slaves and the 14th Amendment was not adopted until after a war had been fought over the issue.

0 Replies

Yes, Joe, and amending that constitution took the bloodiest war of modern times in terms of dead and wounded as percent of combatants.

It is my hope that the Marine Mammals Protection Act can be amended, to provide additional safeguards for our intelligent relatives, by peaceful means.

0 Replies

Andrew - do you mean the 13th Amendment?

0 Replies

Was the Dred Scott reference code for Roe v. Wade?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know