Dred Scott Vs SandFord The case, Dred Scott vs Sandford, (1857) better known as the Dred Scott case was a crucial decision that affected America and it’s black population. Free blacks in America weren’t able to sue the court. The concept of popular sovereignty was also questioned, and blacks with ancestors were imported to America was slave could no longer become citizens. The Case ruled that slaves in free countries are still slaves. In 1857 the Dred Scott case was pulled into the supreme court.
Some people fail to see the way that major court cases in the United States history helped shape the way that the government is formed today. People with a black skin tone used to be harassed and treated differently than people with white skin tone simply because of the of the fact that they were colored. Well, that was until the Civil Rights Acts were passed. Three of the Supreme Court cases that influenced the civil rights movement by ruling certain things unconstitutional that were once considered okay: Dred Scott v. Sanford, and Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education. Dred Scott v. Sanford was the first of many extremely influential cases in the United States history.
Civil Rights Movement In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that school segregation was not “separate but equal” but instead an unconstitutional practice. The civil rights movement circulates through American memory in forms and through channels that are at once powerful, dangerous, and hotly contested. Civil rights memorials jostle with the South 's ubiquitous monuments to its Confederate past. Was the civil right movement, indeed, a “long civil rights movement” that predated the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision? Yes I believe that the civil right movement was a long civil right moment, the reason I said yes is because the civil rights movement was long in time, with activism taking place well before the Brown vs. Board of Education decision and continuing after the traditional
Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the darkest cases in the history of the Supreme Court. After years of slavery, parts of the United States were beginning to head in a direction away from slavery. The establishment of the Missouri Compromise and gaining some territories as slave states and others as free states, was proof of this shift from slavery, especially in the north (Pearson Education Inc. 2005). The Scott v. Sandford decision, in which an African American man was denied both his freedom and his citizenship to the United States, did not link up with this new way of thinking. The divided opinion amongst the Justices illustrated the divided nation (Scott v. Sandford 1875).
As a young democratic nation it was divided between two belief systems, free or enslaved backs. Slavery had a lot of complication when dealing with the national and state governments. When we go back to the Declaration of Independence we will notice the great emphasis on equality however this was not a national concept given to all. Slavery was a very controversial issue between the Northern and Southern States and what the Declaration of Independence stood for. While in the Northern part of the nation argued that Slavery was unconstitutional the Southern States fought to say that slaves were not considered people but material possessions
According to the FindLaw argued that Despite, with all these new laws passed by President Abraham Lincoln 's, African-American and ethnic minorities, did not get any equal right under the law. In fact, in 1896, we have the Supreme Court of the United States argued that, the state government have the power to separate different races as long as the separation were equal. This “Separate but Equal” The Supreme Court policy stayed there until 1954. In that same years the Supreme Court walk back to their decision in 1896, “Separate but Equal” because of the cases which involved schools’ discriminations in Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. Also in the 1890, African-American did not have the right to vote, because of the “poll Taxes”,
In 1909, the NAACP started its legacy of fighting legal battles to win social justice for African-Americans. The most significant of these battles were won under the leadership of Charles Hamilton Houston and his student, Thurgood Marshall. Nathan Margold found that, the facilities provided for blacks were always separate, but never equal to the facilities provided for whites, violating Plessy’s “separate but equal” principle. Thurgood Marshall continued the Association’s legal campaign, and during the mid-1940s, in Smith v. Allwright, Marshall successfully challenged the “white primaries,” which prevented African Americans from casting a vote in several southern states. In 1946 Thurgood Marshall also won a case in which the Supreme Court ended
The royal governor of Virginia issued an emancipation proclamation promising freedom for runaways slaves who fought for the British. Eventually British would lose the war and most African Americans found themselves in Canada, eventually the ban would be lifted by George Washington to allow to blacks enlist in the continental army. Another wave of history during the civil rights movement was the most controversial cases during this time frame, the brown v board of education of Topeka Kansas. The Supreme Court struck down the Plessy v Ferguson decision in 1896 which allowed state sponsored segregation, according to the decision by the Supreme Court segregation in public school is unconstitutional. This was a major victory of the NAACP organization and mostly for attorney Thurgood Marshall who would later become the first black justice in the Supreme
Explain how the two rulings are examples of judicial restraint or judicial activism use evidence from the reading to back up your response. The Plessy V. Ferguson1896 case is an example of judicial restraint. It is an example of judicial restraint because the argument Plessy made supports the idea that segregation is not equality, it makes the black race feel inferior. The court disagreed because it isn’t legal or political therefore constitutional by technicality. Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power unless laws are obvious examples of being unconstitutional.
Discrimination in voting, is not just limited to the southern states. Lawmakers in Ohio and Wisconsin, for example, have gone to great lengths to complicate voting for minorities (Rosenthal, 2016). It did not take long for these ridiculous laws to be passed. Some agree that having section 5 in the voting rights act is unconstitutional. Preclearance was a constitutional response to voter discrimination, but it was also unconstitutional to apply it to states based on past issues (Sensenbrenner, 2016).