Savannah Gitchel Mrs. Hodges-Bond Cambridge US History 3 October 2016 Meeting of the Minds Dred Scott The Dred Scott v. Sandford case was a pivotal point in leading America to civil war. The Supreme Court stated that even though Scott was in a free state, he was still the property of his owner and had to remain that way. Abolitionists were angered even further by this decision, whether they wanted complete abolishment, or just to stop the spread of slavery into the North. Reversely, the south was overjoyed with the decision. This increased the sectional conflict between the North and South. The slave in this case became arguably the most popular slave in the nation. So let me introduce myself. I am Dred Scott. I was born in 1795 to slave …show more content…
In 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney made an announcement on the court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled that black Americans were not citizens and didn 't have the same rights as white people. Whether a black man was a slave or free, he could never become a US Citizen. This meant I didn 't have the right to even file his lawsuit. The Constitution was twisted in many ways by the court in this case. Since slaves were considered property, the government couldn 't constitutionally justify taking me away from my owner. The government also couldn 't prohibit slavery or stop it from spreading to free states. This argument is from amendment 10 in the constitution that states that the federal government only has powers that are delegated to them by the states or the people through the constitution. In other words, if the constitution doesn 't prohibit something, the court can 't prohibit it. There was no amendment for slavery since the United States was split geographically on their views. Basically, the Supreme Court couldn 't outlaw slavery in US territories. Also, Taney stated that slaveholders could take their slaves anywhere in the United States since they …show more content…
Questions: To Group- Could the civil war have been prevented if the court had ruled in favor of Dred Scott (Myself)? To Chief Justice Roger B. Taney- If a slave is moved by their owner to a free state for an extended amount of time, should they be granted freedom? To group- Should the court consider slaves to be property? There are many parallels between the ruling in my case and the Compromise of 1850. The fugitive slave act was passed in this compromise. The act stated that anyone who interfered with a slave owner’s rights to their slaves would receive criminal penalties. It also restricted the rights that fugitive slaves had to a fair trial. Although I wasn 't a fugitive slave or a runaway, the court still ruled against me because ruling for me would mean they were interfering with Emerson’s rights to her property. My case ruling, along with the Compromise of 1850, basically crushed the idea of the Underground Railroad. Even if slaves got to a free state, if they were found, they 'd be given right back to their owners. And even though I lived in a free state, I was
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The common opinion for most people for over a century was that black people are “unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations,” so Taney interprets that the constitution never intended to include black people as fellow citizens. Taney supports his argument by stating that “there are two clauses of the Constitution which point directly to the negro race as a separate class of persons, and show clearly that they were not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government then formed.” As black people never had any part in the making of the constitution and weren’t treated as fellow humans when the constitution was made, Taney concludes that the rights of the constitution don’t apply to black people and therefore black people don’t have rights. Taney’s conclusion indicates that black people are only slaves and property and can’t be regarded as
The Results of Dred Scott v Sanford had different effects on American history. This also contributed to the start of the civil war. Dred Scott v Sanford was a court decision on if Dred Scott could sue for his freedom. " According to Supreme Court History, Dred Scott could not sue for his freedom because he was not a citizen. " This was otherwise known as an illegal case.
The court ruled that all people of African ancestry, both enslaved and free, could not become citizens of the United States and could not sue federal court. It also ruled that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit slavery in its territories (Doc. H). This led to the Civil War because one law allowed any person of any color to sue for wrongful enslavement. Another law stated that any person taken to a free territory automatically became free and could not be re-enslaved upon returning to a slave state. Therefore, slavery caused the Civil
Southerners believed they had a right to have slaves on their land because they technically owned them as property and going against the Fifth Amendment would be unconstitutional. A few cases, such as the Dred Scott case, tried to counter this statement. In the Dred Scott case, a man named Dred Scott, who lived in Missouri, was taken from his home and moved to Minnesota, which was a free state. He argued that since he was living in a free state, he should be free. However, Roger B. Taney, the Supreme Court Justice of this case, ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory and that “free territory” did not really exist.
It is undeniable that the passing of The Fugitive Slave Act changed the lifestyles of many such as slaves, fugitive or not, Free African-Americans, and the abolitionists, further displaying itself as the trigger point of the Civil War. The implementation of the Fugitive Slave Act caused a major change in life for free African-Americans. This act addressed the fugitive slaves who were running away to the Northern states. It was originally signed by Washington in 1793 but was later made into a federal law by Henry Clay.
In 1857 the court case of Dread Scott v. Stanford and in 1896 the case Plessy v. Ferguson were introduced into the Supreme Court. They showed people of color were not considered to be anything other than property; the whole majority had no regard for the feelings of another person. The notion of slavery was just coming to light in the United States. As time grew on, the slaves and former slaves were rightly becoming increasingly outraged. Through evaluating language of exclusion throughout both Dread Scott v. Stanford and Plessy v. Ferguson concurrently, anyone can recognize the effects of dehumanization negatively impacting members of the black community.
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.
The Fugitive slave law was an act passed to help southern slave owners maintain their slaves. The act was part of the “Compromise of 1850” proposed by Henry Clay. The compromise was made to resolve disputes between the south and north about land and slavery. The south ended up having slavery allowed below the “36,30” and California joined in as a free state. In the 1840s there were many problems of runaway slaves to the North to become free men.
Dred Scott to them was a property belonging to his owner, and he could not be taken away from his owner without due process of the law. These did not seat well with the North as they believed Dred Scott should have been left free. A young lawyer took quite an interest in the case, the very same lawyer we later saw becoming the United States of America President, his name was Abraham Lincoln.
Slavery had led to a division in the United States. Northerners expressed the abolishment of slavery while the Southerners were in favor of it. During the 1850’s, the United States became polarized due to slavery sentiments on both sides and Congress passed Fugitive Slave Laws. Congress passed the fugitive slave laws in 1793 and 1850 to return slaves who had escaped from a slave state into a free state or territory. The ideology of the fugitive slave law was borrowed from the Fugitive Slave Clause in the United States Constitution (Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3).
It set mandatory sentences for the crimes. So, this shifted the power from the judge to the prosecutor, and 95% of elected prosecutors are white(13th). This shows that still today racism and the effects of slavery are still being felt 151 years
In conclusion, I believe the implications of the Dred Scott decision of 1865 was for the status of free blacks in the United States. Dred Scott, the African American slave fought for his freedom in Illinois, but was unsuccessful. The court’s decision rose questions and greatly impacted the status of free blacks. The slaves and the free blacks did not apply to the constitution, and were not recognized as citizens, which rose questions as to what rights they had and did not
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 vs. Sanford Supreme Court case has gone down in history as one of the most notorious cases and recognized as driving the country closer to civil war. The case became controversial in 1833, because Dr. John Emerson, purchased Dred Scott, and moved to the Wisconsin Territory. From the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in the Wisconsin Territory, therefore, making Scott a free man, right? After living there for a number of years Emerson moved to St. Louis and died in 1843 leaving Eliza Irene Sanford, Emerson’s wife, the owner of Scott and his family. When Scott asked for freedom, Stanford declined which lead to Scott suing the state court, where he won and was acknowledged as a free man.
It did not outlaw slavery, nor did it stop slavery from continuing on in different forms, such as