Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Dred Scott Case Sold Into Slavery - 1,361 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... good is on the whole best provided for by allowing him to take his own means of pursuing it. But by selling himself for a slave, he abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it beyond that single act. (Mill pg 536) Mills counterexample can be disproved by simple analysis of this quotation. He states by an engagement which a person should sell himself, or allow himself to be sold; in Dred Scotts case he did not have a say in the matter whether he wanted to be sold into slavery or not. He was simply taken against his will, and forced to give up his inalienable right of freedom by the United States. I say against his will because honestly who would want to be sold into slavery?

The mentioning of the United States forcing Dred Scott to give up his inalienable right is true because they (U. S. government) permitted slavery in their country. By enslaving someone you force them to give up there rights.

Now we will look at John Locke's perspective on the Dred Scott ruling. John Locke is often referred to as the philosopher of the revolution. This is so because most of his writings were written during that time frame. If Locke were to analyze the Dred Scott case and would primarily argue that the natural right of man is to be free from any power other than the law of Nature. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. (Locke pg 359 verse 22) Locke implies in the same verse that every man should be commonly treated in a society... freedom of men under government, is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to everyone of that society... (Locke pg 359 verse 22) According to Locke a man cannot part with his freedom, in doing so he parts with his life as well.

Freedom and the ability to rule ones life For a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to anyone, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed having, by his fault, forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it. For, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery out weigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, . to draw on himself the death he desires. (Locke pg 359 verse 23) Locke would view Scotts case as an unjust one because a mans liberty (freedom) was taken from him, without his consent. Dred Scott like everyone else is a man, in Locke's eyes men are to be treated as common in society.

So why should this man (Dred Scott) be denied his freedom? Is it because he is a man of color and he is not white? The answer to that question in Locke's eyes is that he is a man no matter what, you can not change that attribute. Regardless of color he is still a man in Locke's eyes and should be granted his natural right to freedom and his life. Now we will look at Locke's counterexample for this argument. Master and servant are names as old as history, but given to those of far different condition; for a freeman makes himself a servant to another, by selling him for a certain time, the service he undertakes to do, in exchange for wages he is to receive: and though this commonly puts him into the family of his master, and under the ordinary discipline thereof; yet it gives the master but a temporary power over him, and no greater, than what is contained in the contract between them.

But there is another sort of servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters. These men having, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with it their liberties, and lost their estates; and being in the state of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of civil society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of property. What Locke is saying here is false because Dred Scott did not Forfeit his freedom, rather it was taken from him. He is contradicting himself in saying that they (slaves) should not be considered a part of civil society.

Before he was saying that all men should be treated commonly in a society, but now he is changing his tune and saying that they should not be a part of society. Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all rights and privileges of law of Nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, has by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; ... (Locke pgs 372 - 373 verse 87) Locke proves himself wrong with this quotation because he does not distinguish between men and slaves as he did before. Furthermore a man can not be deemed another mans property unless they commit to a contract with that individual. In Dred Scotts case he did not commit to any sort of contract, he was taken against his will and purchased by a United States Army Officer. Thus Scott is entitled to his freedom according to Locke's quotation above, eventhough Locke believes that slaves forfeit there freedom. Scott is entitled to his freedom because he is a man who is a rational being.

In evaluating both Mills and Locke's perspectives upon the Supreme Courts ruling for the Dred Scott case, a few things can be concluded from both sides. From Mills point of view it is your inalienable right to have freedom. In his counter example though he states that you lose your freedom when you sell yourself into slavery. That argument does not apply however to Dred Scotts case, because he was forced into slavery, and his inalienable rights were stripped from him. From Locke's point of view man was born free from any superior power on earth, he (man) was only to have the law of Nature as his ruler.

Locke also believed that all men should be treated commonly in a society. In his counterexample he states that slaves forfeit there right to freedom and control of there lives. Actually this is wrong if you look at the Dred Scott case once again you see that he did not forfeit his freedom rather it was stripped away from him. In doing so he lost the power to govern his own life, which Locke deems a necessity in order to live. By analyzing passages from both of the respective philosophers they make a case that Dred Scott was deprived of his inalienable right to freedom and to govern his own life. They also provide contradictory statements that say that he forfeited his right to freedom, and also that some things do not apply to him because he was a man of color.

There statements are self-contradictory because he is indeed a man regardless of his color, and they both state that a man should not be deprived of his right to freedom. Although both philosophers have self-contradictory statements about this topic of slavery and freedom, the Supreme Court made there decision based on there own perspectives. Bibliography:


Free research essays on topics related to: civil society, locke, dred scott case, sold into slavery, john locke

Research essay sample on Dred Scott Case Sold Into Slavery

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com