There have been many famous court trials throughout history. The Dred Scott v. Stanford Court Case of 1857, also known as the “Dred scott case”, was one of these historic court trials. This court case led to the United states supreme Court decision on the US labor law and constitutional law. It revolved around the matter of Negroes whose ancestors that were imported into the United States, and were put into slavery. The Supreme ruled that whether enslaved or free, Blacks could not be an American citizen, could not sue in federal court, and the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired.
Dred Scott versus Stanford caused major controversy and dispute across the nation. It opened the scab of “is slavery right?” even more, and many began to question if slavery was wrong. In 1820, Congress had passed a law banning slavery in most of the northern areas of the United States. Illinois and Wisconsin were included. Chief Justice Taney said
…show more content…
From the the Supreme Court Justices, to the Start of the Civil war. Scott’s Chances in getting an appeal from the court was relatively low. Seven of the nine court justices came from slaveholding homes. Scott's stay in Illinois which was a free state, gave him the legal standing to make a claim for freedom. His prolonged stay in Wisconsin, where slavery was also prohibited, also gave him the same legal standing. Sadly, Scott never made the claim while living in any of the free states. Most likely, he was unaware of his rights at the time. Another, is the election of Lincoln. While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many in the North were outraged. The decision of the supreme court greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln for the Republican Party. His election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union. Ultimately, it led to the Civil
His goal by doing this was to officially earn his and his family’s freedom and leave the Emerson family. Scott’s lawyers argued that by moving him to a free state and by becoming a free man there, that he would always be a free man now. Scott had reason to believe that he would win the case because similar cases had gone through the Supreme Court before and they had ruled in the slave, or former slave’s
Dred Scott was taken back into slavery and accused Sandford because Scott was in a free states and claimed that he was in the free state long enough to be a free slave. The Supreme court ruled against Dred Scott, this decision affected blacks preventing them to become citizens and an giving them the right to appeal to a jury and making it harder for a slave to escape because the free states didn’t make a runaway slave a free slave. The case also affected popular sovereignty. Where states got to choose if they were to be a free states or a slave
In the late nineteenth century, the North and the South were sharply divided in terms of lifestyle, economical strengths and weaknesses, morals, and political viewpoints. There were many issues that were heatedly debated at the time; slavery, education, industrial expansion, and the rights of freed African Americans. The economy varied hugely depending on the region. In the North, factories fed the economy, and it was full of booming cities. The South however was dependent on "King Cotton," a crop which was almost entirely dependent on slave labor.
It was a case about how Dred Scott who was a slave tried to get his freedom. Because his owners had taken him into a free state he tried to use this to acheive
Scott argued that his time spent in these free locations entitled him to his freedom. One problem was that he went to the courts when he was in a slave state. The court basically told him that no African american, freed or slave, could claim
Within the United States supreme court, seven out of the nine judges either supported slavery or had owned slaves previously, so Dred Scott was entering a biased and unfair trial to begin with. On March 6, 1857, The decision for the Dred Scott v. Sanford case was heard by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States, and "... They had no rights which the white man was bound to respect". ( Cite Source) He also explained how Scott was never free when he lived in the free territories and that congress was prohibited to have any ruling over slavery, which made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional .
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.
Dred Scott was a slave who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories where he attempted to sue for his freedom. By decision of Chief of Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott 's request. Many believed that Congress had no right to ban slavery from U.S. territories which brought the case to the Supreme Court. The case challenged the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment which prohibits the federal government from freeing slaves brought into federal territories. The Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott which outraged Northerners and contributed to the start of the Civil
Congress didn't have the power to ban slavery in the U.S. The rights of slave owners were protected by the fifth amendment because slaves were known as property. The Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to take Scotts' case due to him being a slave or a slave. Scott was not a “citizen” so they could not entertain Scott's case. Scott was not a citizen so he had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court.
The state attracted citizens from both the North and the South, causing the disagreements of the opposing sides to become more evident. By the year 1855, issues emerged when proslavery and antislavery settlers were competing in order to outnumber one another in votes. Two years later, divisions between the North and South grew even stronger when the Supreme Court took on the case of Dred Scott. Scott, who was an African American slave, sued for his freedom after his masters had traveled with him to a free state. The Court, ruled by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, came to the conclusion that Scott was not a free man because he was property and it would be unconstitutional to take the property of a citizen.
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.
Then the two went to the Supreme Court to workout their differences. Additionally, this case had lots of importance. Saying that slaves were not citizens of the U.S. Furthermore, slaves would not be protected by the Federal Government and courts (Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford) . On the other hand, in the
The end result of the Dred Scott decision was Chief Justice Roger Taney 's decision that Congress did not possess the jurisdiction to stop slavery from spreading into other territories, even if they were considered free. Even worse, any free Black could now be allowably forced into slavery. Being forced into slavery was also seen as being beneficial to the free Blacks. Instead of reaching a decision as President Buchanan had hoped, it had started a rapid expansion of the conflict. This rapid expansion over the issue of slavery eventually led to the Civil War.
The Dred Scott decision of 1865 consisted of several implications on the status of free blacks in the United States, as well as concept of popular sovereignty, and the future of slavery in America. however, I believe the implications of the Dred Scott decision was for the status of free blacks in the United States due to the impacts it caused and the questions it rose. First of all, Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man from Missouri who moved in with his master Peter Blow, in Illinois, a free state. Dred Scott unsuccessfully fought for his freedom by claiming that being a resident in a free state made him a free man. However, in supreme court it was ruled that because blacks can not be recognized as citizens, they did not have
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.