CONSTITUTION

DREDD SCOTT

SLAVE OF ARMY DOCTOR JOHN EMERSON IN MISSOURI

1834 ACCOMPANYS EMERSON TO ILLINOIS (FREE STATE)

THEN WISCONSIN (FREE TERRITORY (1820 COMPROMISE)

1838 RETURNS TO MISSOURI

1843 EMERSON DIES

1846 SCOTT SUES WIDOW FOR FREEDOM

CONSTITUTION

FORMER RESIDENCE IN FREE STATE/TERRITORY MADE HIM FREE

STATE COURT AGREES

MISSOURI SUPREME COURT REVERSES

U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO RULE

WHY?

CONSITUTION

CHIEF JUSTICE ROGER TANEY:

AS A SLAVE-SCOTT NOT A CITIZEN

OBITER DICTUM

MISSOURI COMPROMISE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

WHY?

DEPRIVES CITIZENS OF DUE PROCESS

CONSTITUTION

IT WAS THE NEED TO JUSTIFY SLAVERY MORALLY THAT CONTRIBUTED TO RACIAL STYGMATIZATION

CONSTITUTION

SUMMATION

FRAMERS HAD TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN COMPETING PRINCIPLES

PRICIPLE: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

PRINCIPLE: GOVERNMENTS DERIVE THEIR LEGITIMACY FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

CONSTITUTION

BOTH PRINCIPLES MUST BE SATISFIED

WHERE THEY CANNOT

COMPROMISE IS MORALLY REQUIRED

MIDDLEGROUND

NOT BETWEEN PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE

BETWEEN SALVERY AND CONSENT

CONSTITUTION

HOW?

PRODUCE CONSTITUTION

SLAVERY TOLERATED IN DEFERENCE TO CONSENT

NO MORAL APPROVAL IN RECOGNISTION OF THE SLAVES NATURAL RIGHTS

NOWHERE IN DOCUMENT IS “SLAVERY” USED

IMPLICIT RECOGNITION OF NATURAL RIGHTS

CONCCESSION TO SLAVERY A MATTER OF FACT NOT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT

CONSTITUTION

THEREFORE:

FRAMERS PRODUCED A DOCUMENT THAT

NOWHERE ACKNOWLEDGES RACIAL DISTINCTIONS

TRANSCENDS ITS TIME

PROVIDES A CHARTER FOR THE FUTURE

CONSTITUTION

REMEMBER:

IN ITS LONG AND GLOBAL HISTORY THERE IS ONLY ONE INSTANCE WHERE A NATION WENT TO WAR TO END SLAVERY

CONSTITUTION

Legum servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus

( We are slaves of the law so that we may be able to be free)

M. TULLIUS CICERO