I disagree. I disagree with it all. The decision, that is.
About a month or so ago on a sunny afternoon in mid-October 1857 Dred Scott sued for freedom in court. I was part of the jury for that case. I sat there in my comfortable wooden chair while a man could possibly become another man’s property, which no human-being should. It was sickening.
I oughta mention my name, it’s James Robert. I watched the case unfold right in front of my eyes.
“Now Mr. Scott has been taken onto free soil not once, but twice; therefore, under the law, he should be free. Yet, his master, Mr. Tompkins, claims that Scott is property,” proposed Scott’s lawyer, Danny Hanson. Hanson was soon cut off buy John Tompkins, Scott’s master,
“He is MY property!…show more content… I have had about enough of all of you!” ,remarked the judge.
“As I was saying I don’t believe that human beings should be kept as property, no matter what ethnicity, gender, or religion you are. Humans should definitely not be kept when they are technically free. This country was built on equality, as is the constitution, we should honor that,” I finished.
Frank Holly disagreed respectfully, adding that “Under the Constitution, we can not take away people’s property, no matter how many times they take it to a certain place. I’m sorry Mr. Robert but I will have to disagree with you on this one.”
“People, humans, fellow humans should not be treated like chairs, that is my problem with the whole thing. Mr. Scott is not a chair and should not be treated like one. He was taken onto free soil, he ought to be free,” I disagreed. “But, of course, how could I be so silly? None of this is about whether or not Scott is free because free or not his skin is dark, he is black, and that is all that seems to matter to anyone!”
“He is black, so he is a slave, so he is property ;therefore, we can not take away someone’s property. It is unconstitutional. What people do with their own property is none of our business,” said…show more content… It has all to do with an embattled race of humans. Since Dred Scott is not a citizen some argue that he is not entitled to certain unalienable rights. If those rights are so unalienable, then why is Scott, citizen or not, denied these rights? Because he is black, that is why. This nation is a Democracy, not a sovereign nation made only for one race of people. No matter what color we are we all deserve rights. The right to ‘pursue happiness’ is being denied to Scott and he is being branded as property. No human ought to be property. Dred Scott was taken onto free soil twice, so he is technically free. That is not what the verdict said. Think about that folks, before you go to bed tonight think about it. That’s all I have thank you for your time,” said Lincoln in a speech to the
