ere never intended to become citizens of this country. This was the very same hypocracy that Frederick Douglas made mention to in his writings. Justice Taney’s view of blacks as a sub-human race, or in legal terminology, as property, was the essence of his reasoning in striking down the Missouri Compromise. His decision illustrated that he didn’t even believe Blacks to be human beings. He viewed them as ordinary property, and ultimatly using this reasoning to strike down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that by granting Mr. Scott his freedom, the Congress was depriving Mr. Scott’s former owners of their constitutional right to due process of the law.This points to a monumental aspect in Justice Taney’s decision. The Missouri Compromise, which was a Congressionaly enacted law, was designed to limit the influence of Southern Slave states, by prohibiting slavery in the new territories. Now if by its very nature (according to Justice Taney) this was unconstitutional, because it in a sense confiscates a person property (slaves) without due process, then accordingly, black slaves are constitutionally recognized as nothing more than sub-human property. This, in itself, did not offer much prospect to black slaves, in terms of legal recourse in the courts.This was the very point that Frederick Douglas was harboring on in his Fourth of July speech. He said that although the “Negro race” has advanced, both socially and academically, nevertheless, they have yet to be accorded with the proper social standing due to them. Even though, he says, amongst the social ranks of the black community are lawyers, doctors, ministers, academics, fathers, mothers and children, still, blacks “are called upon to prove that we are men!”Another difference between the views of Justice Taney and Frederick Douglas, is the angle in which they see all of this. Justice Taney, in his tenur...
