The majority decision of the Dred Scott case in 1857, was unconstitutional. As a slave wanted his freedom he was denied said freedom by the courts.
The Dred Scott case was all about a slave who wanted freedom because he said the Constitution allowed him his freedom. As it precisely does, in it, it says, as the first 3 words of the Constitution “We the People” with no specifications or criteria. Just “People” nothing else. Thats for a good reason as well no criteria needs to exist to define a person in that context, the only difference between Caucasians and African Americans is the amount of melanin in each of our bodies. Frederick Douglass once said “..not we, the citizens, or the legal voters” showing that even back then, African Americans were still treated as lesser peoples. Not able to vote at all and were not considered citizens, even with the lack of criteria in the Constitution.
Some believed that the Declaration of Independence should not and was not meant to include African Americans. In the Dred Scott majority opinion they believed it to be “conclusive” that the Declaration of Independence was not meant to include the “enslaved African race”. They were meant to be “excluded from civilised government and doomed to slavery”. They were under the impression that slaves were property and that they had the right to
…show more content…
As a slave wanted his freedom he was denied said freedom by the courts.The majority reason had no valid points, all it had was assumptions. As previously stated any existing human being should be considered apart of “We the People” and anyone who says otherwise does not know the definition of unconstitutional. Due to the fact that the Constitution only said “people” with no qualifiers; Which meant slaves were supposed to be included in the Constitution. So if you were to disagree your opinion would be unconstitutional. Therefore the majority decision was