Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made a pro-slavery ruling in the 1857 Dred Scott Case that deemed blacks were not considered citizens of the United States (History.com, 2016). Dred Scott was a slave owned by John Emerson who had spent lots of his time in Illinois and eventually Wisconsin, which was free territory. Scott felt that since he spent most of his residency in a free territory that he should be considered free. But unfortunately the Supreme Court denied citizenship to black people, setting the stage for their treatment as second class citizens, leading to the Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow laws are statutes and ordinances that were formed to create "separate but equal" facilities for the black and white races of the south(softschools.com, …show more content…
Louis, Missouri by his owners in 1830. In the following years soon after moving he was sold to Dr. John Emerson. With his owner being an army doctor they traveled very frequently, leading Dred Scott into many placed against the idea of slavery. For seven years, he lived in slave free territories. After the death of his owner John Emerson, he was then considered property of Emerson’s wife. Dred Scott reported that Mrs. Emerson beat him and treated him terribly. Hence, why he decided to fight for the freedom that he believe he deserved. Two out of the three justices were pro slavery making it a hard battle to fight for Dred …show more content…
Supreme Court decision in 1857, and hastened the start of the Civil War (americancivilwar.com,nd) . The most ironic moments in American history, Chief Justice Taney swore in Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States in 1861. As historian Charles Warren later wrote, Taney elected Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency. Not long after that the Civil War, began. Taney remained on the court during the Civil War until his death in 1864. He was described by a diarist of the time, while being one of the saddest figures in Washington. During Dred Scott’s trials many difficult events that ended up concluding with the U.S. Supreme Court decision which accelerated the start of the Civil
Roger Brooke Taney made history in the 1857 Dred Scott Case by ruling that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. This controversial historical figure died on October 12, 1864, in Washington, D.C. One of Robert’s most famous quotes was "What Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state. "What Robert is saying is that a master of a slave can do whatever he/she wants with that slave. By the time Roger B Taney became Chief Justice, Taney had become a staunch supporter of slavery, even though he had manumitted eleven slaves he inherited as a young man and made anti-slavery statements when serving as defense
To first understand why Mr. Dred Scott decided to sue for his freedom, we have to understand the prelude to his story. Even before Dred Scott was born a case in London was buzzing that would emancipate slaves and some historians believe the case contributed to increasing colonial support for separatism in the Thirteen Colonies of British North America, by parties on both sides of the slavery question who wanted to establish independent government and law (Britannica). The case was Somerset v. Stewart and it has been deemed one of the most important legal actions in the history of the antislavery movement (Weiner 71). The facts of the case were that James Somerset was a slave of Charles Stewart, an officer in the British colony of Boston in
In 1833, Dred Scott was purchased as a slave by John Emerson, an army surgeon who was moved from Missouri, the place he was bought, to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. However, under the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery was banned there, making the area a “free” state. Nonetheless, Scott continued to work as a laborer for Emerson for the next four years, and was a hired hand whenever the surgeon would go out of town for business. After moving around with Emerson, as well as his family, Scott was willed to Emerson’s wife Eliza Irene Stanford after his owner’s death in 1843. Eliza refused to set the Scott family free after they wished to purchase their freedom, causing Dred Scott to sue her in a state court, alleging that he was free under
His goal by doing this was to officially earn his and his family’s freedom and leave the Emerson family. Scott’s lawyers argued that by moving him to a free state and by becoming a free man there, that he would always be a free man now. Scott had reason to believe that he would win the case because similar cases had gone through the Supreme Court before and they had ruled in the slave, or former slave’s
Scott had filed another suit in court in 1854 against John Sanford. The case was favored to John Sanford but Scott turned to the U.S. Supreme court. On March 6, 1857, after 11 years of the Dred Scott v. Sanford, seven out of nine judges from the Supreme Court decided that slaves were not citizens of the United States. Which also led to the decision that they had no rights to sue
Annotated Timeline Dred Scott January 1799 -1832; Dred Scott’s birth and early life Samuel Dred Scott was born into slavery and was owned by his master at the time Peter Blow and his wife Elizabeth, who all lived in Southampton County, Virginia. His birth date and details are roughly known and estimated. The Blows’ family and all other slaves that he owned including Scott, moved to Alabama where Scott works in a cotton plantation for 12 years. The Blows’ relocated to St. Louis Missouri giving up on farming and Dred Scott is then sold to Dr. John Emerson who was a surgeon in the United States Army. December 1833- 1843; Dred Scott New Master – Dr. John Emerson Dr. Emerson and Scott relocated from the Jefferson Barracks in St. Louis Missouri to Fort Armstrong, Illinois.
Scott knew he had to fight for not only his own freedom, but every other colored man’s freedom that put their faith in him. Because of this long journey Scott took, slavery was abolished. Who knew this case would ever turnaround, only time would tell. All persons born in the United States were NOW declared to be United States citizens, signifying that the Scott vs. Sanford case truly reversed the way people viewed the nation. Sadly, Dred Scott’s life came to an end, but he wouldn’t be forgotten after all the chaos the court’s put him through.
“We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color.”, says Maya Angelou putting in the spotlight the judgment of people based on how they look. The cases of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Loving vs. Virginia all attempt to prove this point during the civil rights movement. These cases also make apparent the segregation of blacks in the court system. In 1864, the question of having freedom was brought into the courtroom by Dred and Harriet Scott in St. Louis City. Dred and Harriet Scott had been held captive in free territory and then brought back to a slave state.
In 1846, Scott sued his and his family’s freedom, but was rejected by the Supreme Court 11 years later. The final ruling had an immense impact politically, economically and socially. (Bell. “Civil War on the Western Border”). Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote an opinion against Scott, which makes logical sense since he is a southerner.
Dred Scott was born was a slave in the state of Virginia and was owned by Peter Blow, who died in 1832. Scott only had two masters after Blow’s death; one lived in Wisconsin and later Illinois, both of which prohibited slavery, yet, Scott didn’t petition for freedom. Instead he met his wife Harriet. The two met their new master in Louisiana, who did not grant them freedom, so Scott looked for legal action to escape his slavery. Over a period of seven years, he went through trial and retrial until he was denied his final freedom in 1854.
In addition, this decision revealed that African-Americans were considered to be property rather than citizens. In sum, Dred Scott, a slave of Dr. John Emerson of Illinois, a state in which slavery is prohibited, sued his master’s widow for not granting him his freedom in a free state. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was not entitled to his freedom and must remain a slave. Lincoln described the Dred Scott Decision as a “burlesque upon judicial decisions”. Significantly, this decision displays the false interpretation of the Declaration of Independence(DOI) and the clear opposition Congress has to the idea that equality also applied to blacks.
Dred showed how standing up and fighting back for his freedom could pay off, being that he was granted his freedom. Dred Scott was a powerful individual who proved the knowledge and power of african american people. He proved that enslaved individuals could fight and gain their freedom, and achieve equality amongst the caucasian people. Dred Scott formed a strong foundation for equality amongst all
Thus, the decision prevented free blacks from advancing in society. The constitution did not apply to them, which consequently developed a lot of confusion and created problems the future free blacks and slaves in the United States. Last of all, even though free blacks were considered as free men, the court failed to recognize them as citizens. This meant that free blacks still did not receive the rights they deserved. The Dred Scott decision was to define the free black’s status and define what rights they did and did not have, since the constitution did not apply to them.
Dred Scott was sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived for a time in a "free" territory. The Court ruled against him, saying that under the Constitution, he was his master 's property. The people involved with this court case are the Supreme Court,Dred Scott, and Chief Justice Roger B. The final judgment for this case ended up in Dred Scott 's favor.
The Dred Scott Decision made the Civil War unavoidable because of the treatment of African Americans regarding their equality and opportunity. Dred Scott was a slave in Virginia who tried to sue for his freedom in court. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court level, where the justices found that, as a slave, Dred Scott was property that had none of the legal rights of that of a white man. The Northerners hated this decision because it meant that slavery could spread into all territories. This inflamed tensions as the Northerners felt that the South was trying to expand slavery into the free states and would be able to do so.