Dred Scott Reconsidered?
Dr. Paul Finkelman of Albany Law School in New York will present this year’s Constitution Day lecture, “Was Dred Scott Correctly Decided?” on Thursday, Sept. 27, at 6:30 p.m. in Blount Auditorium.
Are you for serious?
Was Dred Scott Correctly Decided? Is this a question that's really worth asking? To pull from Wikipedia, in the Dred Scott case, "[t]he court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that Scott could not therefore bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's sojourn outside of Missouri did not effect his emanicipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property."
I mean, i realize this lecture is taking place in Tennessee, but i figured by now even they'd cop to the fact that perhaps that whole people as property thing was a mistake.
My problem isn't really with the question, though. I fully support questioning. And based on the professor's other work, i'm presuming he's going to reach the crazy conclusion that, yes, the Dred Scott case was incorrectly decided. But doesn't it seem to be cheating, a little, to start with such an absurd premise that the question answers itself?
Are you for serious?
Was Dred Scott Correctly Decided? Is this a question that's really worth asking? To pull from Wikipedia, in the Dred Scott case, "[t]he court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that Scott could not therefore bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's sojourn outside of Missouri did not effect his emanicipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property."
I mean, i realize this lecture is taking place in Tennessee, but i figured by now even they'd cop to the fact that perhaps that whole people as property thing was a mistake.
My problem isn't really with the question, though. I fully support questioning. And based on the professor's other work, i'm presuming he's going to reach the crazy conclusion that, yes, the Dred Scott case was incorrectly decided. But doesn't it seem to be cheating, a little, to start with such an absurd premise that the question answers itself?