There are three different perspectives when it comes to how U.S. history should be viewed and remembered. Some believe in embracing the country’s history, even when it includes discrimination, and using it as a tool for learning and teaching. Others advocate for the removal of racist history, such as changing street and building names and removing statues depicting slave owners and racist leaders. Finally, there are those who are indifferent and simply want to move on from the past. The writer initially thought they were in the first camp, but recent events have caused them to question their stance.
The National Federation of Republican Assemblies introduced a resolution aimed at preventing Vice President Kamala Harris from holding the office of president, citing “precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court cases.” Among these cases was the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, which is widely regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. This ruling essentially stripped enslaved people of their rights as protected citizens. While the NFRA argues that candidates like Harris are ignoring this old law, it fails to acknowledge that constitutional amendments have since overturned the Dred Scott decision.
The writer questions why outdated discriminatory laws like Dred Scott still exist in legal arguments, despite being overturned by constitutional amendments. They argue that such laws should be rendered invisible in legal proceedings, preventing them from being used as weapons to discriminate against individuals. The writer also highlights the importance of educating children about the country’s past, including the injustices faced by marginalized communities. They emphasize the need to learn from these historical failures in order to prevent similar injustices from occurring in the future.
In both Kansas and Missouri, there have been state laws that have been overturned by Supreme Court rulings. Missouri, for example, had racial covenants limiting Black people’s property rights still on the books in 2021. Governor Mike Parson signed the Missouri Human Rights Act in 2022, which mandated the removal of old housing restrictions based on race, national origin, or religion in newly-recorded deeds. Additionally, Missouri repealed bans on interracial marriage and adoptions that once existed between 1865 and 1952. These examples demonstrate the progress that has been made in addressing discriminatory laws and practices.
The writer argues that the NFRA’s efforts to use discriminatory laws like Dred Scott in legal arguments are a waste of time, brain cells, and taxpayer money. They advocate for making any laws overturned by the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments invisible in legal proceedings. They also suggest extending this to include the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, and even the First Amendment. Ultimately, the writer questions whether the country has adequately addressed its history of discrimination and whether there is still work to be done in ensuring equality and justice for all individuals.
