The majority decision of the Dred Scott case in 1857, was unconstitutional. As a slave wanted his freedom he was denied said freedom by the courts. The Dred Scott case was all about a slave who wanted freedom because he said the Constitution allowed him his freedom. As it precisely does, in it, it says, as the first 3 words of the Constitution “We the People” with no specifications or criteria.
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
The court case Dred Scott vs. Sanford — 1856 to 1857 — was vital regarding the lives of enslaved or non-liberated African Americans. The outcome of this trial changed the perspective of slaves all across the United States. Rights concerning liberated and enslaved Americans from Africa were declared and enforced in this case. In 1833, John Emerson — a medical surgen of the US Army — purchased a slaved named Dred Scott.
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
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.
Today the trial, Scott V. Missouri, which was Dred Scott, a slave owned by Irene Emerson, suing for his freedom, had taken place. The trial had started out with a witness for prosecution, who stated that due to Dred Scott’s status as a slave, that he didn’t have any rights within the constitution. He went on to claim that the constitution only covered people and therefore, Dred Scott was only considered property and had no rights. In addition, the witness made the argument that due to Missouri law, Dred Scott was still considered a slave since he still resides within Missouri. During their argument, the Supreme Court questioned the witness about what the definition of a person was in the constitution and whose job it was to debate the Constitution.
Dred Scott was a dedicated man who stood strongly for his declaration of independence. Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owner, Dr. John Emerson, to Free states and territories with his wife Harriet Scott and later attempted to sue for his own and families freedom. The Case is known as Dred Scott vs. Sandford or the “Dred Scott Decision.” Dred Scott was born around 1795, in Southampton County, Virginia. His parents were slaves so as a child he was raised into a home of slavery.
The aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act began the violence known as Bleeding Kansas, which was the result of countless conflicts of pro-slaver and anti-slavery settlers. To make matters worse three years later, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated, “… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time….”11
The Dred Scott case was a Supreme Court case in which a slave travelled with his owner from a slave state to a free state. While in the free state, Scott married another slave. His owner whom he had travelled there with allowed Scott to be free. When his owner died, Scott attempted to sue his wife because she rented Scott out as a slave again, despite being free when he travelled to the non-slave state. Scott lost the court case and the outcome had a large impact on
Prior to this decision, Dred was enslaved in Alabama, then was brought to Missouri. From there, he was sold to John Emerson, who brought him to Wisconsin territory. Soon after, he was brought back to Missouri. Once in Missouri, Dred Scott, and his wife Harriet filed for their freedom in Missouri court. Eleven years later, Chief Justice Roger Taney denied Scott in Washington D.C. due to three rulings; African-Americans had no rights in federal court, Slave states no longer had to follow the doctrine “Once free, Always free”, Congress should never have banned slavery in any territories.
In 1846, slavery was a very big thing in America. But if a colored man asked if he could be free, would you say no? Well in Dred Scott’s case, that became a reality. That’s why The Dred Scott Decision was significant to American History and it led to the Civil War.
He also ruled that it goes against the fifth amendment:“... No person shall be deprived the right to life, liberty, and property without due process law…” ( document 9). Even if Taney had Dred Scott free the case still would’ve led to the civil war even though the Northerns would’ve been happy the southerns would’ve been and thrown hissy fits. Southerns were happy when they heard that Preston Brooks beat
The decision was finally reached in 1857, this lead the states to decide the issue of slavery with majority rule, although slaves were not counted as citizens. (Events and Decision Leading to Civil War,
By March 1861, seven southern states seceded before the inauguration of President Lincoln. They seceded for a number of reasons, but not for any of the following reasons. The Dred Scott decision was an event that did not influence the decision to secede, since in the end, Dred Scott and his family remained as slaves (despite having lived in a Slave state and a Free state). Then, while important, the Wilmot Proviso had no contribution to the secession of the South. While it did address the controversy of the issue of slavery in new states, both of it‘s propositions were turned down and had no effect.
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.
