Dred Scott Case Summary

he Dred Scott decision of 1857 was a significant decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared that blacks, regardless of whether they were free or a slave, had no legal standing because they were not American citizens. The decision was not the first to be made regarding Dred Scott; a Missouri jury ruled in Scott 's favour when Scott claimed that his residence in Illinois and Wisconsin made him free, but the state supreme court ruled against him, which lead to the case being escalated to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7-2. The Dred Scott decision is considered a landmark decision and is indicative of the tumultuous political climate of the time.

He believed that slaves were their happiest being slaves. He also believed that free labor workers in the north do little work and they use people. This document tells us what southerners thought and what they believed. We can also see how crazy these thoughts are. There are plenty of more reasons and things that could 've led to the American Civil war.

Slave trade has a great impact on American history. The book “slave nation” by Alfred W. Blumrosen gives an insight of slave labor during the civil war. This book also shows how slavery united the colonies and sparked the American Revolution. The book begins with the explanation of the founding of the republic and Somerset case impact on the republic. This book also explains how and the reasons Thomas Jefferson made few changes in the declaration of the independence.

I believe that the results of Reconstruction have been mixed and i believe that the economy is a problem that needs to be fixed. By not dictating who can have what job based on their race Reconstruction can meet its goal of creating equality for all. During Reconstruction, Americans had very different opinions about the government. In the northern states, most people believed that since the South had seceded before they had to keep an eye on them.

The concept of slavery being taken away as a right led to the Southern states seceding, becoming a “country” of their own. They felt the North was not listening to them, and ignoring their rights clearly listed as an amendment. This amendment was included to gain the Southern states ratification of the constitution which ultimately led to the Civil War. The state having this type of power caused the Federalists to feel a bill of rights was redundant, but Anti-Federalists did not feel that it was written clear enough. They were not reassured.

The Constitution of the United States was formed in order to unify the separate states into one country, under one government. It established the government, laws and proclaimed the rights of United States citizens. Under the Constitution slavery was neither legal nor illegal, creating problems eventually leading to the dissolution of the Union. This oversight in the Constitution led to increased tension between the North, who called for an end to slavery, and the South were the institution was deeply rooted. The rapid expansion of the United States during the 1850’s through 1860’s revitalized the slavery debate, and called for decision on whether slavery would continue and spread, or be outlawed.

America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.

A single cause for the Civil War cannot be fixated on a single issue, rather it is vital to understand that multiple variations in the North and South’s politics, society, and economy all culminated to a point where war was deemed necessary. In addition, these variations existed long before the years leading up to the Civil War - the geographical constraints presented to the colonists created the different identities of the North and South. Years later, the conjunction of these differences and the attempt to unify contrasting regions lead to the Civil War. In essence, the differences in culture, race, and gender between the North and South ultimately created the Confederate States of America who waged war against the United States.

It is true to say that by the 1850’s the Constitution went from an instrument of unity to a source of tension, and lead to the failure of the union. The Constitution originally helped maintain peace, but when issues over slavery appeared, it failed to provide the guidance the union needed. Because of differing interpretations of the Constitution and the multiple conflicts, it lead to disunion. Because not everyone could agree on what the constitution implied, it led to the failure of the union. Document E states: “The words ‘slaves’ and ‘slavery’ are not to be found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply..

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

The two parties in this case are Dred Scott and John Sanford. Scott, a former slave bought by Dr. John Emerson, argued that when him and the Emerson family moved to Illinois, which was a free state, that he became a free man and no longer could be held as a slave to the Emerson family when they moved to the slave state of Missouri. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson’s brother, argued that since he went to Missouri with Mrs. Emerson, and that it was legal in Missouri to hold slaves, that he was still considered to be Mrs. Emerson’s property. Once Dr. Emerson died, Scott and his family sued Mrs. Emerson for false imprisonment, but Mrs. Emerson won the case in a Missouri Circuit court when Scott’s lawyers were unable to prove that Emerson was holding him as a slave. Scott’s lawyers argued for a retrial and it went to the Missouri Supreme Court.

On December 24th 1851 court was adjourned until March 15th 1852. Dred Scott did not deny that the case had been heard before; he did however state the decisions were never based on Missouri law. In Dred Scott’s conclusion he stated, “slavery was the will of God and times now are not what they were when former decisions on the subject were made”. Basically Scott knew racial and sectional prejudices played a role in the decision. Justice Hamilton Gamble agreed with Dred Scott that times have changed but disagreed that any principles had changed.

Two fundamental questions normally surround the history of any war: whether the war was inevitable and if it was necessary. These same questions emerge any time during debates regarding the American Civil war. The most cited cause of the Civil war is the secession of certain southern states that formed the Confederate States of America in January 1861. Thomas Bonner writes "Civil War Historians and the "Needless War" Doctrine" arguing that Southern Carolina seceded in 1860, followed by six other states by January the following year. A deep analysis of the events leading to the war indicates that the Union and the Confederates had profound ideological, economic, political, and social differences.

For the issue of first question it was ruled that Dred Scott could not sue, because he was not a citizen of Missouri, and therefore courts had no jurisdiction. Chief Taney stated that no “negro”, not even a freeman could be a citizen under the constitution. Third question that Taney claimed was the question of whether the Missouri Compromise was constitutional or not, in which Taney goes on to say that Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. (Klingaman 28) This was the second time that the Supreme Court used its power of Judicial Review to find a federal congressional act unconstitutional.

Before reading This Great Struggle, I always viewed the Civil War as just a war that sprouted out of nowhere and just sort of happened over the single reason of slavery. But after reading this book I found that my misconception of the Civil War was extremely inaccurate. While reading this book I learned many new things about the Civil War that I had never known about before and I believe that it has given me a completely new outlook on the Civil War. Although he demonstrates how the war was not caused only by slavery, but he also proves the concept that slavery was a major cause of the Civil War. While reading This Great Struggle, I found that the war was, although commonly avoided and excused, fought over slavery.