Dred Scott V. Sandford Case Analysis
In Dred Scott v. Sandford the case started in 1856 and ended in 1857. “The Supreme Court decided that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.” - Alex McBride (McBride 2006, 411). The verdict was unlawful and absurd. In 1787 the three-fifths compromise was enacted. It was one of the most controversial topics at the time. The three-fifths compromise was a way for southerners to ensure that they weren’t out-numbered in the House of Representative. James Williams, a northern coincidentally proposed the three-fifths act. It didn’t benefit the north because they
…show more content…
They were considered property, which caused a big dispute. If property was counted with the representation other items should’ve been considered as well. If slaves were property they should have be counted with taxation purpose, which would increase the wealth of the south. James Madison had an idea to the amendment to the Articles of Confederation in 1783. Under this compromise, each slave would count as three-fifths of a person both for representation and taxation purposes. According to all of the evidence I have provided the three-fifths compromise is unfair in various way. In 1787 approximately 90% of slaves lived in the South and accounted for about 30% of the southern population, which ultimately put the south in control of America. It was “bending” the law, they weren’t citizens or valued close to it. They were property, Africans were taken advantage of by the white man. They were used to help them politically, but they were unable to vote because they were not
They were considered property, which caused a big dispute. If property was counted with the representation other items should’ve been considered as well. If slaves were property they should have be counted with taxation purpose, which would increase the wealth of the south. James Madison had an idea to the amendment to the Articles of Confederation in 1783. Under this compromise, each slave would count as three-fifths of a person both for representation and taxation purposes. According to all of the evidence I have provided the three-fifths compromise is unfair in various way. In 1787 approximately 90% of slaves lived in the South and accounted for about 30% of the southern population, which ultimately put the south in control of America. It was “bending” the law, they weren’t citizens or valued close to it. They were property, Africans were taken advantage of by the white man. They were used to help them politically, but they were unable to vote because they were not