Currently my group is studying McLean's retort to Taney's decision on Scott V Standford. The primary objection he has is against Taney's claim that the negro is a subordinate class of people who are rightfully oppressed by a superior race. It is Taney's claim that the Founder's believed that negroes should be held in this regard and that they had no right to citizenship.
McLean objected to this by remarking on the multiple cases where black men were treated as citizens, including the result of the Mexican War and the admission of free colored people at the time of founding. The other controversial issue within the case is the extent to which the constitution talks about slavery and race. McLean takes the side that the constitution does no explicitly regard races other than white as inferior or less deserving of rights that the court should hold persons of other races in the same regard. Taney takes the stance that the Founders were in full support of slavery and the perception of black men and women that Taney holds himself.
The major dispute in this case is the following: What constitutes a citizen? Taney argues on the side that, although the US has laws on naturalization, they did not extend to persons of color. A similar controversy would be the birth of a child by illegal aliens on American soil in the past few decades. After this controversial topic is explored and somehow agreed upon, the next incredibly vague question to be answered is, "What are the rights of a citizen?" and "Are there different rights that different citizens should have?"
These are ideas that my group will be exploring during this case study.
Here is an article by G. Stolyarov II on the Dred Scott case that I have used to study for this case study as well that I found very useful.
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-dred-scott-decision-criticisms-john-356695.html?cat=37
No comments:
Post a Comment