The question of morality in a criminal case has always been a topic of concern. A question arises when considering the following; does a good cause justify a serious crime? In John Brown’s case, he uses the abolitionist’s cause to justify the murder of several men. Though his intentions were good, and his cause was mighty, it’s not morally sound to murder people. Many would argue that he was a hero, that fighting for the end of slavery in the manner he did was an act of bravery. However, radicalism of any variety is still dangerous. Though he was well-meaning, John Brown’s actions were not only inexcusable, but has the potential to reflect negatively on the abolitionist cause.
In conclusion, the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision was one the most infamous in Supreme Court history. Dred Scott a slave who sued for his freedom on the base that residence on free soil had made him free lost the case. He lost in what is now known as one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. The court ruled that people of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens. Therefore the court held that it did not have jurisdiction because Scott was not a
In the world today there are many definitions of terrorism, but there is not one definition for terrorism because not everyone can agree on one. I believe John Brown is a freedom fighter, but the actions he attempted like at Harper's Ferry and Pottawatomie Creek is most likely to be a terrorist act. When John Brown was young he lived in a religious family. John Brown memorized the Bible and strongly believed in God. His family believed that there should be no slavery. When John Brown was older he took a vowel to be an abolitionist which means someone who is against slavery.
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.
In 1859 an abolitionist led a raid of 20 men to a federal arsenal in Harpers Ferry, Virginia in order to supply slaves with weapons and provoke a slave rebellion (B). This man was named John Brown. Born to an evangelical Christian family, Brown deeply hated slavery and favored military tactics to abolish it (C). Viewed as a martyr in the North and a murderer in the South, he had a great impact on the abolition movement. People even today continue to debate on how to define him. Although many consider John Brown a terrorist since he led a premeditated attack on the South, he is a freedom fighter since he increased abolition support and he lived up to the revolutionary principles of America.
The Dred Scott verses Stanford was a Supreme Court case which recognized African American slaves not as people but as property. Dred Scott was an African American slave in Missouri for many years. Later he moved along with his owner to Illinois, then to the Wisconsin Territory where slavery was not allowed. After they returned to Missouri, Scott’s owner passed away. The owner’s wife took the ownership of Scott. Eventually her owner rights transferred to her brother, John Stanford. Antislavery lawyers helped Scott file a lawsuit against Stanford. His lawyers argued that because Scott had lived in a free territory, he had become a free man.
"History inevitability", "Dred Scott Case" which is the immediate flashpoint of American Civil War, can be avoided?
In October 1859, the U.S. military arsenal at Harpers Ferry was the target of an assault by an armed band of abolitionists led by John Brown (1800-59). (Originally part of Virginia, Harpers Ferry is located in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia near the convergence of the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers.) The raid was intended to be the first stage in an elaborate plan to establish an independent stronghold of freed slaves in the mountains of Maryland and Virginia. Brown was captured during the raid and later convicted of treason and hanged, but
The case of Scott vs. Sandford was a major factor in the movement for abolitionist. It empowered the newly republican party, and altered the constitution for the good. Till this day, U.S. colored citizens are now treated like citizens due to the Scott vs. Sandford case.
John Brown (May 1800- December 1859) was a Militant American Abolitionist and an antislavery martyr.Brown worked many jobs such as a tanner, sheep driver, wool merchant, farmer, and land speculator, in order to take care of his family, but he was, most importantly, helpful in setting hostility that lead to the Civil War (1851-1856). Being an enemy of slavery, Brown did not mind living in a black community in New York and even wanted to win justice for slaves. He assisted antislavery forces in Kansas (1855) and become the leader of antislavery guerillas. Brown led a raid on a settlement that was for slavery and became "Old Osawatomie Brown", a man feared by slavery apologist. In 1858, Brown wanted to establish a refuge for slaves in the mountain
John Brown was a radical abolitionist who believed that the only way to end the institution of slavery in the United states is through a violent insurrection--Truly he was a man of Action. Born on the 9th of May 1800, John Brown, who hailed in Torrington, Connecticut was born into an extremely religious christian family who ardently opposed slavery. From his youth it was instilled in him that slavery was wrong. Thus, this belief is what eventually led him to host several violent attacks in the means of putting an end to slavery. In October 1859, together with 21 followers, two of which his sons, John brown instigated an unsuccessful raid to a federal arsenal in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia. And although after this attack he was heralded as the
John Brown was born on May 9, 1800 in Torrington, Connecticut . John Brown was a major change for American history. He was a radical , his father was very concerned about slavery and religion. No one could do anything about slavery, so John Brown wanted to do stuff but in his other plans for many different things, stuff never turned right and his plans would fail automatically. John Brown decided to take his father 's trade. John Brown later on had married Dianthe Lusk in 1820 and had lots of children but unfortunately she died in the 1830s. He got remarried to Mary Ann Day in 1833. John brown had moved a lot because of his financial situations. John Brown had gave free land to the African Americans, because he hated slavery so much that he wanted to do
On the night of October 16,1859 John Brown and his Men started heading out to where the Ferry was. On October 17 when morning came around Brown and his men had robbed the local gun store. When they came out there were U.S marines every where. On the night of October 17 Brown and his men were getting ready to take over the Harpers Ferry.
John Brown's raid, while viewed as a failure, was a big success for the North in their fight against slavery. While he didn't manage to do much damage before getting caught and executed, it was the symbolism that lasted after his death that made an impact. He was viewed as a martyr by the North, and it began the notion that violence was needed to achieve
Violence should never come first in trying to make your point seen or heard. Social change such as an agreement without the use of violence can always be an option because no one can ever get hurt. Yet there 's also a line that should not be intersected. If someone uses violence on you, should you be able to use it back? Yes, but it only should be used to defend yourself such as if someone is threatening you and takes action physically you should too.