Dred Scott's Argumentative Analysis

1020 Words3 Pages

During the earlier times of America, many people had different opinions on the forming country, debating if it was free or not. It was called “the land of the free” and many other important documents backed up the argument. Yet, there are many concepts that go against that and really show what America was. A particular slave named Dred Scott, African-Americans, and new immigrants can all testify that America was not independent, but was in fact very restricting. Juries would go against previously made laws to make sure that what they wanted would always be insured. Multiple regulations would be formulated to be beneficial to the Americans. People that were not truly American were seen as property not people. Many were pushed around and harrased and it …show more content…

Dred and his owner had traveled to a free state, a state where slavery is illegal and is run by the North, and Scott argued that the time they spent there made him a free man. He went to court to fight for his rights, but was denied. History.com stated that “... the court decided that no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom.” This meant that Scott couldn’t even go to court on behalf of himself because he was not a citizen. Also, it is said that property can not be taken from the owner, and since Scott was a slave, he was identified as property. An American document made during those times states "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes”, but still Scott was not freed after his time in a free state (drbronsontours.com). Dred Scott’s case was dismissed and he was still forced into slavery. If America was a free land, hy would not force people into slavery in general, but surely wouldn’t go against previous documents just t make sure an African-American was still

Open Document