No one would be interested, but my college seminar was "American Law," which also dealt with this "Dred Scott v. Sandford case."
World history textbooks teach "Civil War" as a war of liberation of slaves, but I think it's not that easy in reality.
The other day, I read Toni Morrison's book "Beloved" and saw this incident for the first time in a while, so this time I would like to take a look at the "Dred Scott Incident" that triggered the Civil War.
Federal State America
The official name of the United States is "United States of America", and it may be better to think of it as a collective America of nations rather than a single nation.
The states of the United States can be thought of as one country, and the laws differ from state to state.
Regarding the liberation of slaves, in the 19th century when the incident occurred, there were some states called "free states" where blacks could be freed, and some states did not.
The southern regions of the United States mainly run plantations, which are made up of cheap labor, black slaves. Free trade, which facilitates the export of cotton to Britain, was a favorable policy for the South, as it mainly produced cotton.
On the other hand, the northern part was industrialized, there was no need to rely on slave labor, and protectionist trade was an advantageous policy in terms of avoiding competition with British industrial products.
In this way, conflicts were intensifying in the northern and southern parts of the United States due to differences in policies, and the Dred Scott incident occurred at that time.
Missouri Compromise
The existence of the Missouri Compromise is very important as the background of the Dred Scott case.
The agreement stemmed from the North-South conflict between making Missouri a free state or a slave state when Missouri was established in 1820, and eventually Missouri itself became a slave state. It is an agreement that all states north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north will be free states.
Against this background, it is sometimes called "Missouri's compromise."
Dred Scott Incident
Born in 1795, Dred Scott was born a slave and is known to have been purchased by Major John Emerson of the United States Army in 1833.
Emerson worked in Illinois for three years, and Illinois was a free state.
Emerson moved to Minnesota after finishing his work in Illinois, where Dred Scott got married.
Emerson then moved to Missouri, where he lent Dred Scott and his wife to his wife.
It's a little confusing, but the point is that slavery itself is illegal in Illinois and Minnesota, and the twist of American law that there is no problem in Missouri has become a problem.
Emerson then moved to Louisiana and the free territory of the Iowa Territory, where Dred Scott was lent to his wife in Louisiana.
Emerson died in 1840, and Scott was a slave to his wife, but in 1846 Scott was accused of being a free state, not a slave, because he had gone through the Free State. did.
Judgment to cover
Dred Scott won the first instance. Emerson appealed this, but Dred Scott won the second trial.
But the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying Scott was a slave.
Various criticisms continued in the Supreme Court's decision.
Missouri's case law states that slaves are free if they cross the Free State, but the Missouri Supreme Court Hamilton, who ruled, is famous for owning a large number of slaves and is self-sufficient. Will be criticized nationwide for making a ruling in favor of.
The situation became a concern for James Buchanan, the next president of the United States at the time, and President Buchanan, who feared his approval rating declined, said he had done some tricks to keep himself out of the sparks.
Kansas-Nebraska method
America at that time continued to expand. When Kansas and Nebraska became territories, a law was enacted that, when both regions became territories in the future, it was up to the residents to decide whether to make them free states or slave states. The Missouri Compromise was effectively abandoned because both areas were north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north.
This law was passed by Congress in March 1854 and became the official law of the United States.
The opposition to the law eventually became a large party, which eventually became the Republican Party and one of the two major American parties.
Federal Supreme Court Judgment
The judgment of Dred Scott, who moved the stage to federal court, was made in March 1857 by Judge Roger B. Taney.
The argument of the judgment is as follows.
(1) Blacks do not have the right to sue because the Federal Constitution originally does not recognize blacks as citizens.
(2) Blacks are not free even if they live in Free State. Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery north of the country, is unconstitutional.
Unsurprisingly, this was the conclusion of the United States.
Federal courts directly ruled that blacks had no citizenship.
Simply put, blacks can never be free, and the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that blacks are slaves for the rest of their lives.
A dark book came down to the United States.
The country took the lead in keeping slavery alive.
It must be said that the United States in the 19th century was far below the level of ancient Rome in its democracy.
I am amazed to hear the country of freedom.
Perhaps because of this negative aspect, there is no Japanese textbook that deals with the "Dred Scott case." America must always be shining.
It's a beautiful country.
Impact of the incident and Lincoln and Civil War (Civil War)
People have a conscience.
The United States is not without this unreasonable rise.
Three years after Dret Scott's decision, Republican member Abraham Lincoln, who advocates the liberation of slaves, won the presidential election in the United States.
To counter this, the southern states left the United States and declared the establishment of the Confederate States of America, both of which entered into a civil war from the United States, Civil War, and a war called the Civil War in Japan.
Thinking about Dred Scott's decision
It is a very important judgment along with the Rosa Parks case in American history. However, it is not well known in Japan.
Many people, including myself, are longing for the existence of America.
But we overlook only the positive part of America.
I think it's time for us to look closely at the negative parts of America.
There are many movies and novels about the American Civil War.
Toni Morrison's "Beloved", "The Good, the Bad and the Sunset", "Gone with the Wind"
Not all black problems in the United States have been solved yet.
The Alabama Story still describes the current situation in which blacks are sentenced against blacks in the South, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen in the United States.
The black issue is like a past story in American history, but all history continues with the past.
A federal court ruling like Dred Scott would mean that justice is not always justice.
Not everything that the government has decided is correct.
From every educational point of view, I think the existence of the "Dred Scott Incident" is something that should be included in textbooks.
No one should use a person as a slave.