Mill vs Locke
Dred Scott was the name of an African-American slave. He was taken by his master, anofficer in the U.S. Army, from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois andthen to the free territory of Wisconsin. He lived on free soil for a long period of time.When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back tothat slave state, where soon after his master died. In 1846, Scott was helped byAbolitionist(anti-slavery) lawyers to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should befree since he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney,was a former slave owner from Maryland. In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision asseven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slavecould be a U.S. citizen, or even had been a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated,Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain a slave. At that time there were nearly 4 million slaves in America. The courts rulingaffected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. The
Southernersapproved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in theterritories. To Mill they are considered tobe needy of the white man. Byanalyzing passages from both of the respective philosopher's they make a case that DredScott was deprived of his inalienable right to freedom and to govern his own life. The Supreme Court also ruled thatCongress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories. He was simply taken against his will, and forced to give up his inalienable right offreedom by the United States. freedom of menunder government, is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of thatsociety. These menhaving, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with it their liberties, and lost their estates; andbeing in the state of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that state be consideredas any part of civil society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of property. "(Mill pgs 517-18)Does Mill's General Harm Principle apply to all people? No it does not apply to allpeople. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter himmust be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The reason for not interfering unless for the sake ofothers, with a person's voluntary acts, is consideration for his liberty. If Mill were to look at the Dred Scott decision, he woulddeem it unjust because the Supreme Court did not do the right thing they were moreconcerned with the consequences of limiting the Southerners rights to have slaves. Mill would alsoargue that the Supreme Court took part in what he dubs " the tyranny of the majority" indeciding the Dred Scott case. "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally includedamong the evils against which society requires to be on its guard. Freedom and the ability to rule ones lifeare interdependent systems.
Common topics in this essay:
Dred Scott,
Court United,
According Locke,
Supreme Court,
Scott Forfeit,
Dred Scott's,
Scott Tyranny,
According Mill,
Harm Principle,
Missouri Scott,
dred scott,
supreme court,
own life,
tyranny majority,
forfeit freedom,
law nature,
mill's harm principle,
mill's harm,
harm principle,
inalienable freedom,
dred scott's,
harm principle apply,
pg 359 verse,
dred scott forfeit,
govern own life,
|
Acceptance Essays
