Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dred Scott v. Sandford article.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|Dred Scott v. Sandford is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.|
|This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 6, 2004.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on March 6, 2004, March 6, 2005, March 6, 2006, and March 6, 2007.|
POV in opening pargraph
This unsourced sentence in the opening reeks of unsubstantiated POV (and is very naive to say it caused the Civil War). It compromises the whole article. Since this is a well written article, it should not be sabotaged so early on with a sentence that is flame bait.
- It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, leading to the abolition of slavery and establishment of civil rights for freed slaves.
Americasroof 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur with the above, which has since been edited, but I also would like to mention that the same bias exists in the last sentence of this paragraph.
- The reasoning used in the "Slaughter-House Cases" is extremely sound considering the fact that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were written with the intention of overturning the Dred Scott decision.
The first part evidently lacks neutrality; the last part probably makes a conclusion that is a bit uncalled for -- as though this was the only or principal reason for the amendments. Finally, there is no reference for the statement.CallidusUlixes (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't check the talk page before making my edit a few minutes ago: I excised this part:
- "The court’s decision was so contentious that some [who?] go as far as to suggest that the Dred Scott decision caused the Civil War. Although such an assertion is rejected by most legal and historical scholars, it is nevertheless acknowledged that"
The Finkelman reference paper (ref# 4), one of the most-cited references in the article(kinda, sorta) opens with this:
- While the case’s holding and doctrine are no longer jurisprudentially important, its historical and cultural impact can hardly be overestimated. Though surely an exaggeration, it has been said that the case caused the Civil War. While other forces caused secession and the War, Dred Scott surely played a role in the timing of both. After the War, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were in part designed to overturn its holding.
I note that Finkelman omits to cite WHO, if anyone, clamied the civil war was caused by Dred Scott. No substantiation for that line. therefore, I report that I did get rid of what user:America'sRoof rightly calls "naive" and "flamebait". Mang (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of Africa hypothesis and Dred Scott decision
Interestingly enough, if one considers the Out of Africa theory, had the Dred Scott decision stayed put, the USA might've wound up with no citizens, apparently. Obviously, someone would've had to correct for this evolutionary finding before long. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality of opening paragraph
"but retains historical significance as perhaps the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court"
That states an opinion, and it states that opinion as if it was a fact. Most people in the western world, Myself included, find racism and slavery appalling. I simply believe that we should reword the sentence to something more like; "but retains historical significance as what many believe may be the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court" or something similar perhaps. Just for neutrality sakes. We should attempt to maintain a NPOV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tristanjay (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The neutrality of this article is absolutely compromised by the statement (however true individuals such as myself believe it to be). Moreover, the cited article does not use the word "worst" to describe the decision. However, it does describe the decision with the phrases, "reputation as a 'bad'decision," and, "unquestionable the most controversial decision in Supreme Court history," without citation or proof, compromising the neutrality of the cited article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Supreme Court votes
The article does not name all the justices in that 1857 decision, which raises the question if the ones that were set against Dred Scott's plea did so because they were slaveowners themselves. Musicwriter (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Opinions in the text
First paragraph... "worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court." I resent the use of wikipedia to arbitrate opinion under the pretense of encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)