Compare And Contrast Ferguson And Dred Scott

1873 Words8 Pages

The founding fathers of the United States made a courageous attempt in breaking away from the oppressive British Monarchy by creating a nation that promoted democracy, equal opportunity, and the rights of common people. However there were countless instances where laws were passed that did not demonstrate the morality that ideals of democracy withheld, but instead only protected the rights of certain ethnic groups and ultimately discriminated those who were differed from the majority. Many court rulings and laws such as the Plessy vs Ferguson Court Case, Dawes Act, Dred Scott vs Sandford Court Case, Fugitive Slave Act, Taft-Hartley Act, and Fair Labor Standards Act presented policies within American history that undermined the morality and …show more content…

In the Dred Scott vs Sandford Court Case, the US supreme court proved this by declaring that black slaves were just considered property and could not sue in court. Dred Scott, an african slave, came with his owner to the Northwest Ordinance during the mid eighteenth century and lived there for two years. However, Congress previously declared that slavery was outlawed within that territory within the Missouri Compromise, as it stated any states above the 36 parallel were free states. As a result Dred Scott believed that he should have been freed and sued his owner till it got to the Supreme Court, where he was declared as just property, not as United States citizen, therefore not allowed to sue in court. “Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury, find that wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant." (US Supreme Court par. 37) Slavery dominated much of American labor system since the beginning moments of the country till after the Civil War. Slave owners regarded their slaves as mere property that they can sell or trade with others, and do as they please with them, which promoted the harsh working conditions, abuse, and oppression that slaves withstood. The Dred …show more content…

In the Taft-Hartley Act, the US Congress demonstrated this by demolishing the rights of worker unions and strikes, giving the employers overwhelming control over the lives of employees. The National Labor Relations Act, or Wagner Act, passed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, previously protected the strikes and collective bargaining of employees and labor unions. However, with the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, labor unions were much weaker than before, and many even branded this act as the “slave-labor act.” “To pass the Taft-hartley Act that lifted many of the protections organized labor had enjoyed since the passage of the Wagner Act in the 1930s” (Fraser 754). With the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act, many of the rights that protected the rights of workers to collectively bargain with their employers without any risk of losing their jobs and union strikes, were significantly weakened. It required that the Unions were to give notice before their strike, diminishing the effectiveness of union strikes, as now the employers can prepare for that circumstance. This resulted in the weakening of worker unions and employees, which gave much more power to employers instead of trying to keep the ideal of equality that the United States tried to uphold, demonstrating that in the United States policies are not only created to uphold morality. Additionally, in the Fair Labor

Show More
Open Document