Slave Personhood

The rights of slaves, and the moral and legal status of slavery in general was a pressing issue in the American justice system and in the court of popular opinion for many years during our nations founding. In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the court decided that slaves are in fact property and do not have any legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. Yet, just two years later in United States v. Amy, the court ruled that Amy was in fact a “person” since she was a living, breathing human being. These two cases are ultimately contradictory because Dred Scott made it clear that the laws and protections do not apply to slaves since they are not “persons” under the law, but the prosecutor in Amy said that she was a “person” under the law. The effect of …show more content…
It instead made a legal framework that said that slaves were under the law and therefore should be held accountable for their wrongdoings and can be punished for their offenses against the laws (p.1749) but they do not have any rights or personhood status. This in and of itself shows claim that personhood does not exist in a clear standard. Instead, personhood and its application is formed by the judge’s opinions in a particular case, and also by the mood of society and their reasoning’s behind their support, or absence of support, of the rulings. The lack of consensus amongst the population and the courts regarding the personhood status of slaves made for an ambiguous nature. In some cases, slaves were “persons” because they are human beings, and in other cases, slaves were merely just a person’s property and had a legal status comparable to that of animals. As times rolled on, the status of slaves as legal persons got one step closer with the passing of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. Despite this groundbreaking change, former slaves and minorities were still alienated from the rights that most of the majority …show more content…
Every decision that the legislature and the courts make that includes the term “person” has great importance to the status of the precedent. For example, if a court decides that the attack of a pregnant mother that resulted in the miscarriage of her fetus is murder, the court unintentionally created the precedent that a fetus is a “person” and has rights under the law. This then conveys that abortion is illegal because it is the murder of a fetus, which is now a “person” according to the ruling. That decision may only reflect the judge’s, or jury’s, opinion on abortion rather than what the term “person” actually includes; whether they intended to or not. Personhood does not actually exist in the legal framework of the United States. Whether a person or nonperson becomes a “person” under the law is effected by three things: the judge, jury, or legislature’s opinion of the case at hand, the opinion of society surrounding the issue, and the overall implications of the precedent that may or may not be created as a result of the ruling or passing of a