Argue that Dred Scott should be considered a slave using past Missouri State Cases?

Question

I have a debate tomorrow, and if anyone could help me out a little bit, it'd be great. I'm currently looking into the Rachael v. Walker, Ralph v. Duncan, and John Keeton cases. Its hard for me to argue my point because most of the cases before dred scott were in favor of the slaves freedom under the "once free, always free" precedent! Any way I can argue against the precedent itself?

Answer 1

Hmmmm - - - - when it comes to the law I tend to be rude, Slavery was and is wrong and no law can justify that. Blame some of that on Jewish heritage....

That said you should be a bit clearer. Am I quessting correctly that you are arguing against Dred Scott Freedom? If so then all that I know is that Taney ignored any argument """in favor of the slaves freedom under the "once free, always free" precedent! (ny way I can argue against the precedent itself?)"""""

Taney's stance was that Dred Scott was Property - - - chattel, to be sold at the whim of the superior white race. In modern terms Taney was a racist though it seems as if he is hailed as some kind of hero. History can be confusing. I have received two violation notices for calling Jefferson Davis a traitor.

That said in any argument in favor of slavery, and to this day in 2007, the argument was simply that a black and/or ***** slave was not equal to a White Manand was therefore property. That said many whites were bournd by contracts that were much like slavery. You can always fall back on Indentured Servant laws. Taney relied on those and since they covered people of all nationalities, and would be used 'For' the importation of 'cheap' Chinesse labor, and the same laws would be used Against the imortation of Cheap Chinesse Labor,' during the decade of the not so Civil War and many decades after.

Throwing some links and such at you.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html
""In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the ***** might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Abolitionists were incensed. Although disappointed, Frederick Douglass, found a bright side to the decision and announced, "my hopes were never brighter than now." For Douglass, the decision would bring slavery to the attention of the nation and was a step toward slavery's ultimate destruction. """
http://www.geocities.com/nai_cilh/servitude.html
"""Indentured Servitude in Colonial America
By Deanna Barker, Frontier Resources


One half to two thirds of all immigrants to Colonial America arrived as indentured servants. At times, as many as 75% of the population of some colonies were under terms of indenture. Even on the frontier, according to the 1790 U.S. Census, 6% of the Kentucky population was indentured.

Citizens of the colonies would deal with indenture on a daily basis. My intent is to give the reenactor or interpreter some of the background about working beside, owning or having been an indentured servant.

This was a labor system, not a system of apprenticeship. (Galenson, 6) The historic basis for indenture grew out of English agricultural servitude and began because of labor shortages in England and in the colonies. It developed at a time when England had a great number of people being displaced from farming. This led to an early growth of the indentured labor system.

The importation of white servants under contracts known as indentures proved more profitable as a short-term labor source than enslaving Indians or using free labor. Eventually, the final attempt to ease labor shortages was enslavement of Africans. Wherever you find slavery, you first find indentures.

A labor-intensive cash crop such as tobacco required a large work force. The earliest indentured servants were brought to Virginia as farm laborers. The importance of indenture can be seen in Virginia, where in 1618 the colony offered a headright, a grant of 50 acres per servant, as an incentive to planters to import more servants from England. The headright became the property of the owner, not the servant. (Galenson, 12) According to Galenson, "the basic elements of the system were in use by the Virginia Company by 1620, and may have been worked out earlier ..."(3)

In practice, the servant would sell himself to an agent or ship captain before leaving the British Isles. In turn, the contract would be sold to a buyer in the colonies to recover the cost of the passage. The crossing in steerage was grim. One indentured servant, Thomas Morally, was given three biscuits a day to eat and each mess of five men was given three pints of water per day.

Criminals convicted of a capital crime in England could be transported in lieu of a death sentance (for the theft of an item with a cost of as little as one shilling). Servitude also could result from indebtedness, where a person, their spouse or parents owed money, and the person was sold into servitude to recover the debt. In other cases, a parish indentured orphans in order to keep them off the poor roles. Plus, the poor sometimes sold themselves into indenture just to survive.

In most cases, the work of the indentured servant would be household or agricultural unskilled labor. There was also a great demand for skilled craftsmen. If an indentured servant had a skill that was in demand, like weaving, smithing or carpentry, the change of negotiating a shorter contract was quite good.

In theory, the person is only selling his or her labor. In practice, however, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of the servant was harsh and often brutal. In fact, the Virginia Colony prescribed "bodily punishment for not heeding the commands of the master." (Ballagh, 45) Half the servants died in the first two years. As a result of this type of treatment, runaways were frequent. The courts realized this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers. (A.E. Smith 264-270).

If a servant worked their full indenture, they received freedom dues, which were based on Hebrew law from the Old Testament. (Deut. 15:12-15) Many colonies also granted land to the newly freed servant.

As reenactors of the eighteenth century, every one of us would interact with indentured servants on a daily basis. A fairly large number of us would have been servants at one time. Yet, at most reenactments, this institution is noticeably lacking, along with travel papers and identification papers. As an early Virginian, John Pory, put it, "Our principal wealth ... consisteth in servants." (Galenson 3)

Bibliography:
James Curtis Ballagh. White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia. Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1895.

Fredrick M. Binder & David M. Reimers. The way we lived: Essays and Documents in American Social History, Vol. 1; 1607-1877. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co., 1992.

Phyllis Cunnington; Costume of Household Servants from the Middle Ages to 1900. London, UK; Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1974.

Joseph Doddridge; Notes on the Settlement and Indian Wars. Parsons, WV: McClain Printing Co., 1996.

David W. Galson; White Servatude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

W. Preston Haynie (Ed.) Northumberland County Virginia Records of Indentured Servants 1650-1795. Heritage Books, Inc., 1996.

Peter Kolchin. American Slavery 1619-1877. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1993.

Abbot Emerson Smith; Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607-1776. Chapel Hill, NC.: University of North Carolina, 1947.
Warren B. Smith: White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1961.
Charles Woodmason; Journal of C.W. Clerk."""

http://eh.net/Clio/Publications/indentured.shtml
""Pennsylvania and Maryland Laws Concerning Indentured Servants
Colonial Americans developed laws regarding indentured servants as needed. The following presents a selection of relevant legislation passed at different times, in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, which reflect legal solutions to the problem or runaways and pregnant servants. A Pennsylvania law passed prior to 1682 concerning runaway servants stated that the servants �shall be Adjudged by the Court to double the time of such their absence by future Service over and above other Damage and Cost� and that anyone aiding the runaway �Shall forfeit twenty pounds to the Master...and be fined five pounds to the Court...� Also, anyone harboring or concealing a runaway shall forfeit �ten shillings for every Day�s entertainment or Concealment.�4 In 1683, Pennsylvania enacted a new law providing for a �penalty of five days for every days [sic] absence, after the expiration of ... Servitude�; further, the servant must make �Satisfaction for the Damages, costs, and chairges [sic], to be determined by the County Courts.�5 No Pennsylvania law was found regarding punishments for pregnant female servants, implying that punishments were to be left to the local courts and determined by local custom.

Laws in early Maryland prescribed punishments considerably more severe than those in Pennsylvania. In 1638, for example, several lashes were the punishment for running away. In the following year, the punishment was extended to hanging the runaway. By 1641 the law was changed such that death would be the punishment unless the servant requested that his or her service be extended after the expiration of the contract. The service could be extended up to twice the time absent, not to exceed seven years.

In 1650, time was doubled and the servant was responsible for damages and costs incurred by the master during the servant�s absence. In 1666 the law was again altered providing that a servant would serve 10 days extra for every one day of absence.6 Maryland also spelled out specific punishments for servants becoming pregnant during their terms of service. As early as 1684, �An Act Concerning those Servants that have Bastards� provided that a servant unable to prove paternity would be held responsible for costs imposed on her master. If paternity could be established and the father was also a servant, he was held responsible for one-half the costs. If a freeman were the father, he was responsible for the entire cost. A 1692 law subsequently established severe penalties for white servants having mulatto children, reflecting social inhibitions concerning mixed-race relationships.7
Data, Results, and Discussion------------""


Peace.......... /// ------------ O . Y . O ------------- \\\