| The history
of the United States in this sense has revealed
several negative as well as positive points regarding
justice. This is especially the case regarding
individuals. However, it is individuals who make
up a community or society when they are in larger
numbers. In view of this, to disregard an individuals
rights is to sin against humanity, and this is
certainly one thing that is against the Constitution
of the United States, as all Individuals on this
land are encompassed and governed by the Constitution.
Though slavery survived for many years, it was
unconstitutional. In spite of this, many whites
targeted the colored man and denied him his freedom.
In the eyes of the whites, slaves didn’t
need to be given any freedom and support, and
deserved the cruel treatment meted out to them.
This was of course a traditional concept because
of their skin color and the fact that they came
out from a place where people were largely uneducated
and wild. However, this injustice went on in spite
of much objection from concerned citizens. The
problem was that the laws were not upheld in several
parts of America. This resulted in whites living
in particular regions (mostly the South) sustaining
the master-slave relationship.
According to the Constitution of the United States,
all individuals have equal rights, but there were
several individuals who were crafty enough to
get around the law in spite of its clarity. This
is precisely what had occurred historically in
the Dred Scott case, as Chief Justice, Roger B.
Taney believed that no colored man had the right
to be a free citizen of the United States and
misused words from the Constitution in order to
reinforce his claim (Scott vs. Sanford, 1857).
Undoubtedly words may be twisted one way on another
to be used in a negative sense. However, when
one uses an historical document, it should be
looked into carefully and positively in order
to expose the real and clear meaning of its contents.
Speaking of history, it is important to assert
that the Constitution of the United States has
been misused certain individuals; instead of it
being used for the benefit of individuals on American
soil, judges and their followers had succeeded
in making a mockery of the tenets. Chief Justice,
Roger B. Taney had misused the Constitution in
March 1857, when he declared that Africans on
American soil could never become citizens of the
United States. He asserted that since Africans
were not included in the writing of the Constitution
and that they were not supposed to form a part
of the demography, there were not encompassed
by the Constitution (Fehrenbacher, 1857, 10-15).
Chief Justice Taney further asserted that colored
people were to bought and sold as ordinary merchandise
and could be used by the white man. All these
notions pertain to one particular case known as
the Dred Scott case that serves a landmark in
the history of the United States because Lincoln’s
reaction to the unreasonable declarations of the
court (Scott vs. Sanford, 1857). Lincoln was well
aware that Dred Scott under Congressional ruling
was free in Illinois. He was also aware that Chief
Justice Taney ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise
was unconstitutional.
With these two points in mind, he outlined the
manner in which a divided court twisted the words
of the constitution in order to declare slavery
legal in any part of the country Lincoln was also
aware of what Chief Justice Taney, a supporter
of slavery, was trying to do through his decision.
It was apparent by Chief Justice Taney’s
ruling that a slave could be taken from any part
of the country and enslaved in another part, meant
that slavery would spread far and wide. Through
Dred Scott being enslaved from a slave-free region
and taken to another state meant that an African
was not safe anywhere and that s/he could be abducted
at any time without any one knowing it (Hopkins,
l967, 21-29).
Chief Justice Taney’s ruling that Africans/Negros
can never be citizens meant that slavery would
spread. Reinforcing this was the ruling he passed
against Congress. This is a key point, as Lincoln
focused on it intensively. He was well aware of
the way that Taney had twisted words in order
to enforce slavery every where. In reaction to
the twisted words of Chief Justice Taney and also
to Congress and all those that supported slavery,
Lincoln took a strong stance; a stance that was
rooted in knowledge of the Constitution of the
current situation and of manipulation on the part
of the court (Kutler, l967, 25-28).
In addition to several other political figures
at this time, Lincoln was well aware of slavery
being at risk of being crushed. Lincoln was certainly
a supporter of the Constitutions in its essence
because he wanted all men on American soil to
be free irrespective of color or creed. He argued
determinedly that the Constitution covers all
individuals and is not narrow in its approach
to those on American soil. Lincoln quotes Judge
Curtis’: “The Constitution was ordained
and established by the people of the United States
through the action, in each state … In some
of the states, as we have seen, colored persons
were among those qualified by law to act on the
subject. These colored persons were not only included
in the body of "the people of the United
States" … but in at least five of the
states they had the power to act, and doubtless
did act, by their suffrages, upon the question
of its adoption” (Nicolay & Hay, 1905,
315-339).
It is evident according to this part of Abraham
Lincoln's speech on the Dred Scott Decision that
he was fully aware of the fact that the colored
man participated in the making of Constitution.
This is true to say as there were few colored
people at that time, who were educated and had
assisted in documentation. In addition to this,
even if they were not included while the Constitution
was being written, ethical principles would have
a human being raise those who are persecuted.
However, this being a legal battle, Lincoln had
to provide evidence, which he did. This part of
Lincoln’s argument dealt with the first
part of his two point approach.
Lincoln’s first point was to expose the
fact that colored people did participate in the
writing of the Constitution and were encompassed
by the Constitution. The second point included
pointing out the role of Congress and the Court
in the United States.
To begin with, Lincoln quotes general Jackson
on the issue of the banks. General Jackson’s
words were: “Mere precedent is a dangerous
source of authority and should not be regarded
as deciding questions of constitutional power,
except where the acquiescence of the people and
the states can be considered as well settled”
(Nicolay & Hay, 1905, 315-339). At this point
it is evident that Lincoln aimed at casting doubt
over Chief Justice Taney ’s decision because
of the manner that Taney ruled the case; Chief
Justice Taney was not the least bit considerate
of statutes but was rather taken up with precedence
when he determined the Congressional ‘Missouri
Compromise of 1820’ unconstitutional.
In view of the manner in which Chief Justice
Taney had acted in this case, Lincoln traced the
history of precedence in several issues. These
helped him outline the way that precedence is
actually disregarded and how Chief Justice Taney
had conducted the Dred Scott case in the light
of precedence being an inappropriate tool for
better judgment. In addition to putting Chief
Justice Taney’s ruling in an awkward position,
Lincoln went on to define the roles of governmental
departments.
Lincoln further quotes General Jackson in his
reactionary speech to the ruling on Dred Scott
in order to expose the order to the court. This
is in addition to the case Lincoln made against
the use of precedence. Lincoln quotes General
Jackson: “If the opinion of the Supreme
Court covered the whole ground of this act, it
ought not to control the coordinate authorities
of this government” (Nicolay & Hay,
1905, 315-339).
In view of these words, it is evident that Lincoln
picked very apt words from another corresponding
situation and applied it to this case. “The
Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each
for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the
Constitution” (Lincoln, 1857). This was
particularly asserted in order to over turn Chief
Justice Taney’s words that he used against
Congress he said tat the Missouri Compromise in
1820 was unconstitutional. In view of this, Lincoln
quotes General Jackson further: “Each public
officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution
swears that he will support it as he understands
it and not as it is understood by others”
(Nicolay & Hay, 1905, 315-339). It is evident
through these words that Lincoln had exposed before
everyone the folly of Chief Justice Taney who
was hell-bent on reinforcing slavery rather than
doing his bit to serve justice. However, Lincoln’s
reactionary speech prevailed, and since then this
particular case and Lincoln’s speech have
helped uphold equality for all individuals irrespective
of color, creed, ethnic origin, etc.
|