Talk:Dred Scott

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Abamzai. Peer reviewers: Turner.Sale, Ujwalamurthy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The source - Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, 1619-1877, New York: Hill and Wang, 1999, 7th printing, p. 82 - doesn't seem to line up with the statements being made. In particular, there is an aside made here about the meaning of the "3/5 of a person" claim from the constitution that I believe to be wholly incorrect: "Contrary to popular belief, slaves were not counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of congressional representation." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3/5_Compromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.20.254 (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Can someone explain the statement "Contrary to popular belief, slaves were not counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of congressional representation?" The text in the constitution is "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." Did the writer mean to say that contrary to popular belief, it was not Blacks that were counted as 3/5, but more specifically only enslaved people? The next sentence references free Blacks, who presumably were recognized as "whole" persons. Gs228 (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

TODO: How could Brown have been freed some years after the Supreme Court hearing (1857) and then have died (1858) over a year later? The numbers don't make sense.

What's the difference between trial and case? DS 13:45, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

DS, according to the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the definition of a trial is: "Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges or claims." In the same dictionary, it defines a case as: "An action or a suit or just grounds for an action." Hope it answers your question. Bibliomaniac15 01:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sad...a nonsensical sentence ("When he born he was just called "Sam") managed to survive here for four months. Sigh... john k 23:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just curious - could possibly there have been those in the majority opinion that thought slavery was wrong, but that abolishing it via the bench would have been a usurpation of the court's power, and that they would prefer it be done via legislation in the legislative branches of government? -Brien

Why does George Bush keep referencing this case? I have heard it compared to Roe v Wade. What is the connection?

-Brian Havelka

Brian. Please sign with four tildes after your name. You may be thinking of this (see Justice Scalia here), or perhaps President Bush was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_vs._Sandford#Later_references 155.213.224.59 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article has some grammatical errors and lack of information. If you compare this article to Dred Scott v. Sandford, you would probably consider redirecting. Much is very repetitive from the said article. I also have to bring up the spelling and grammatical errors that hinder understanding. This might be a case of possible vandalism. Also, the lack of images is rather disconcerting.

Bibliomaniac15 01:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

date/year of birth?

I copyedited this article but there remains one internal contradiction as follows:

In the days of Dred Scott, a slave's birth was usually not recorded. Therefore, it was up to guesswork. Most slaves gave their birthday as a season. Refer to Frederick Dougalass' autobiography. Bibliomaniac15 21:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

His tombstone says 1799. The top of the article says 1795. Some external links say "late 1790's". Another link from Wash U. states "1799".[1] I'm thinking "c. 1799" would make the most sense. Rklawton 14:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

== Vandalism one despicable person keeps on vandalizing this article,writing down things like 'poopy' or,'farts'.if you find out who keeps on doing this,please give them a polite yet stern warning.thank you.

I've done a revert or two also. I've left a warning for the IP User_talk:172.154.12.233 . But you know how IPs are. If the user vandalises again, we'll escalate the warnings accordingly. -- Discordanian 01:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Portrait

The image of the painted portrait of Scott we have lacks any information on source, artist, or date. If anyone has any info, please add it. -- Infrogmation 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was able to track down some info and added it to image page. If anyone can find a good usable version of the contemporary photo (is only one known?) of Scott, uploading it to the Commons would be nifty. -- Infrogmation 15:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Porn actor use of Dred Scott name for goal of free advertising

Someone linked to the page of a porn actor who apparently uses the name of the historical Dred Scott to further his career. There is no evidence in that article that the porn star is using anything but a fake name. There is no biographical material in that article. And, it looks very much like that article is free advertising for a commercial product. It contains no verifiable biographical material. I have therefore discontinued the link and placed a note in the porn actor's Talk page. Skywriter 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

STFU kids¡

As long as they're not gay?

I didn't realize the Missouri Compromise included denial of gay rights.Dale662 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Insane Asylum?!

Did I miss something here?

"After the ruling, with Sanford in an insane asylum, Scott was returned as property to Irene Emerson."

Unless I wasn't paying attention, we get Sanford (shouldn't that be SanDford?) by the snap of fingers in… an insane asylum (!) with no more preparation than if he had gone to the local library or the corner grocery store. Shouldn't we be told what put the man in those dire straits (the Supreme Court case or something unrelated like a family disease?)? Also, was it temporary or for the rest of his life, did he go of his own free will, was he committed, was he taken kicking and screaming, what? We may not need two paragraphs on this (the other option would be to take the phrase out entirely), but a sentence or two would do no harm. Asteriks (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence or Constitution?

From the article:

"Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence."

This seems wrong. Wasn't it the Constitution that was at issue, not the Declaration of Independence? Michael 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.206.217 (talk)

Out of sequence

The three paragraphs contained in the two sections 'Overview' and 'Life' are clearly the wrong way about. The third should be first, and the first should be third. 86.148.132.13 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The various travels

'The Emersons and Scotts returned to Missouri in 1842...' - returned from where?

And what was Scott actually doing in Wisconsin without his master, before being summoned South? Who fed and clothed him at this time? 86.148.132.13 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to Danish page is broken - it points to a wrong page

The Danisk links does not point to the Dred Scott page but to a page about a pc game. Jan Kronsell (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Court case sequence

The court case sequence doesn't seem like it could possibly be accurate. It says that Emerson's claim of ownership was ruled as hearsay, therefore the case ruled against Scott. Immediately following it says that there was a retrial in which it was proven that Emerson had legitimate ownership of Scott, so they freed him. Both of these sentences are illogical and therefore doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.89.31 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a little unclear. I think to gain his freedom Scott had to prove that his owner had knowingly kept him in free states for two years. There was no dispute that Emerson had kept Scott in free states for two years, but Scott couldn't prove that Emerson was his owner. This seems to be backed up by the sources. For example: "Scott went to trial in June of 1847, but lost on a technicality -- he couldn't prove that he and Harriet were owned by Emerson's widow."

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dred Scott/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This is a decent article. There are, however, some problems. I will go over them at length after a rereading but the constitutional law issues are addressed rather feebly, as the issue before the Supreme Court in its narrowest construction simply regarded whether Scott had standing to bring federal suit as he had been determined merely a resident in the Missouri Supreme Court, and thus was not necessarily a citizen, a requirement to sue a citizen from another state in federal courts under the Diversity of Citizenship Clause within the US Constitution. Frankly, unless you have studied Constitutional Law, the many issues that flow through the case cannot be properly addressed. The two most reliable sources I have seen are A People's History of the Supreme Court by Peter Irons. Though somewhat subjective, it directly and clearly discusses Dred Scott's life and the various state, federal, and Supreme Courts. Review pages 141-232. Don Fehrenberger's biography is an excellent resource and the earlier Supreme Court decision in Strader v. Graham, 51 U.S. 82 (1850) is useful as well.˜˜˜˜

Last edited at 04:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

African American

This article erroneously referred to Dred Scott as an African American. By definition, the description applies to Americans of African decent which would not include antebellum slaves. Eodcarl (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We use what the reliable sources say and African American is consistently used by these sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

To be an African American, one does have to be an American. African American is not synonymous with black, or of African dissent, no matter how many "reliable" sources use the term incorrectly. Eodcarl (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not the best practice to use modern phrases with all the modern baggage that goes with them to describe historical people. In this case, Dred Scott should not be described as an "African American" but rather as he was perceived at the time: an "African slave" (or "Negro slave" as "African" is rather broad, and slavery in the U.S. at this time was confined by race rather than geography). Rklawton (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Birth Name

I added a short discussion of the confusion over his birth name. My understanding is that it isn't known for sure if he was the same as "Sam", but I could be wrong. I also don't know if "Scott" was part of his name at birth, nor do I know if it has been discussed in any sources. So I'm not sure if the infobox should read "Sam Scott", "Dred Scott", "Sam", Dred", "Sam or Dred Scott", or "Sam or Dred". My feeling is that the infobox should simply not state a birth name. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Smmurphy this website, the Dred Scott Foundation, says he was known as Sam and later changed it.

The National Museum of African American History and Culture says: "It is reported that Dred Scott was originally named “Sam” but took the name of an older brother when that brother died at a young age"

so I don't know. maybe someone else can chime in. Jennica✿ / ^talk 21:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dred Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728142350/http://www.ulstl.org/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Dred%20Scot%20Heirs%20to%20History%2003-06-07.pdf to http://www.ulstl.org/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Dred%20Scot%20Heirs%20to%20History%2003-06-07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dred Scott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119214552/http://www.hsvcity.com/gis/historicmarkers/site/marker_069/page.htm to http://www.hsvcity.com/gis/historicmarkers/site/marker_069/page.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Dred and Harriet Scot Monument.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)