When did they say blacks were not fully human? I also think there is a bit of nuance to what you said. Either way, none of that is part of our constitution.
And if you're using the 3/5ths clause to support the statement that "blacks were not fully human," that was clearly not the basis.
When did they say blacks were not fully human? I also think there is a bit of nuance to what you said. Either way, none of that is part of our constitution.
And if you're using the 3/5ths clause to support the statement that "blacks were not fully human," that was clearly not the basis.
And what happened there? Not arguing that it was a good decision at all, but it was based on citizenship, still in contention at the time. It was not based on "not being fully human."
And it wasn't Dredd v Scott.
$10 if you can tell me the actual parties in the suit?
Dred Scott and John Sanford. My bad, thank you for highlighting it.
(Time to reread a lot of history, for me).
It is a convoluted case of ownership of property transferred among various parties, until an earlier party repurchased, and then freed Dred, allowing he and his wife, Harriet, to be freemen.
Justice Roger Brooke Taney, the chief justice, who filed the brief on his finding for the majority, made multiple statements derogatory about the nature of black people and their contributions to a society quite candidly, in the local and national press.
To say that any human being may be the property of another is to place one human above another. To be subjugated to another is in complete contrast to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
While the D of I may not be canon, it is all that any reasonable decent person needs to aspire to, to fulfill the law of God.
Thank you for correcting me on it, requiring a reread on my part.
Nonetheless, my statement regarding the Supreme Court in all it's foulness, stands.
When did they say blacks were not fully human? I also think there is a bit of nuance to what you said. Either way, none of that is part of our constitution.
And if you're using the 3/5ths clause to support the statement that "blacks were not fully human," that was clearly not the basis.
Correct me if I've missed something.
Dred Scott decision. Rather well known. Chief Justice Taney wrote and spoke of his complete disdain for black Africans quite openly.
And what happened there? Not arguing that it was a good decision at all, but it was based on citizenship, still in contention at the time. It was not based on "not being fully human."
And it wasn't Dredd v Scott.
$10 if you can tell me the actual parties in the suit?
Dred Scott and John Sanford. My bad, thank you for highlighting it.
(Time to reread a lot of history, for me).
It is a convoluted case of ownership of property transferred among various parties, until an earlier party repurchased, and then freed Dred, allowing he and his wife, Harriet, to be freemen.
Justice Roger Brooke Taney, the chief justice, who filed the brief on his finding for the majority, made multiple statements derogatory about the nature of black people and their contributions to a society quite candidly, in the local and national press.
To say that any human being may be the property of another is to place one human above another. To be subjugated to another is in complete contrast to the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.
While the D of I may not be canon, it is all that any reasonable decent person needs to aspire to, to fulfill the law of God.
Thank you for correcting me on it, requiring a reread on my part.
Nonetheless, my statement regarding the Supreme Court in all it's foulness, stands.