In the years leading to the Civil War, there were many events that sparked wide spread controversy and severely divided the nation. Dred Scott an African American slave whose owner brought him from a slave state to a state that outlawed slavery where he attempted to sue for his freedom. In the year 1854, a mere 6 years before the start of the war, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford handed down one of its most controversial rulings to date. Known as the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued a 7 to 2 decision, rendered that Africans whether they were free or slaves were not citizens and that they had no legality to sue in Federal court. Dred Scott was born as a slave in Virginia. As a young man he was taken to Missouri, where he was later sold to Dr. John Emerson. A military surgeon, Dr. John Emerson moved Scott a US Army Post in the free state of Illinois. Several years later Dr. Emerson moved once again, but this time to the Wisconsin Territory. As part of the massive Louisiana Purchase the Wisconsin Territory under the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery. While in the Wisconsin Territory and also later in St. Louis the Emersons started to rent the Scotts out as servants. Under several state and federal laws this was an illegal act in direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. Scott bounced around from several military posts including one in Louisiana before ending up again in St. Louis, Missouri. After the death of Dr. Emerson, ownership of the Scotts reverted to his wife. Through out 1846 Scott tried several times to by the freedom for him and his family. After several failed attempts he resorted to the legal r... ... middle of paper ... ...er B. Taney sent shockwaves through the nation. Taney believed that this would once and for all settle the issue of slavery and whether or not they were considered humans or propriety. Politely it farther divided the north and the south and was thought by many to be a move by the court to expand slavery to territories in the west. In Conclusion, the decision handed down by The United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford. That African American slaves "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." This was a grave mistake made by the Supreme Court and could only add fuel to the fire of the issue of slavery.
... go ahead with the death sentence made the North realize that he was a hero whereas the South believed that Brown was a terrorist and committed an act of treachery and horror. This specific invasion also assisted on choosing Abraham Lincoln for president, who advanced to achieve the vision of John Brown with the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
The ultimate ruling is often referred to as the Dred Scott Decision. The Supreme Court had ruled that although people of African American descent may be free, they are not American citizens. They also ruled that slavery could not be banned in United States territories by Congress. Lastly, because slaves were considered possessions, slave-owners were protected under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. This de...
Before the Civil War, the black man was thought to be inferior to the white man. He was susceptible to diseases that did not affect the white man. Diseases like drapetomania “that induces the negro to run away from service” reduced the black man to a biped animal, incapable of thinking for himself. His decisions were based solely on animalistic instincts and influences such as disease and misleading temptations. In the Dred Scott case of 1857, blacks were decided to not be citizens of the United States of America. Consequently, they were not entitled to any more protection than a cow and could not sue for their freedom. They were not able to dispute the issue. They had no identity outside of their master, they were entirely tied in every legal way to that person’s decisions. Even when a man might admit that blacks are indeed human, blacks would still be looked upon as inferior. Abraham Lincoln, acclaimed liberator, declared tha...
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
The Civil War started when the confederate warships shot at the union soldiers at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina on April 12, in 1861. It ended in the spring of, 1865 because General Robert E. Lee had surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant on April 9. But it still wasn’t over until the last battle at Palmito Ranch in Texas on May 13. But before there was a civil war there was slavery and events that would attempt to end it.
... road that could lead only to disaster. Dred Scott might well have been the point of no return”(186). The decision to have Scott remain a slave was claimed with reasons of not being a U.S. citizen with the right to sue and for not being a freed slave to begin with. The North and South were so divided on the issue of slavery that the Dred Scott case was the match that set fire to the already established idea of an explosion of a civil war.
This act allowed southern slave owners to get their slaves back when they escaped to the North. That is why this act was important and critical to southern survival. The view of this act by the North was the opposite, especially from those who were black, they feared this act. The blacks in the North were terrified that this act would make it so they could be ushered back to the south, even if they were innocent. This led to the creation of resistance groups in the North.
Scott then filed another lawsuit “in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford’s brother, John F.A. Sanford, for Sanford’s alleged physical abuse against him” (McBride). The jury of this trial ruled that Scott could not sue in a federal court, because he was a slave under Missouri law. Next, Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1856. The Court’s decision was made in 1857. Dred Scott and John Sanford had no idea at this time that their lawsuit would have such a huge impact on United States history. The conflict that started in Missouri in 1846, and lasted until 1857, has become a very significant Supreme Court case. The only reason it is so important today is because the two men involved both strongly disagreed with each other, and were not content with the decisions given to them. There were obviously other factors playing into it, such as physical abuse, and not wanting to pay back money. Overall, the reason it went all the way to the Supreme Court is probably because slavery and African American rights were being questioned, and the Supreme Court wanted “to end the slavery question once and for all” ("Dred Scott v. Sandford."). This meant that many people were questioning it, including the lower courts, so the highest court had to answer the question properly and
The controversy began in 1833 when Dr. John Emerson purchased Dred Scott and moved Scott to a base in Wisconsin Territory where slavery was banned. Scott lived there for many years hiring himself out for work while Emerson was gone at war. In 1840 Scott and his family moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson, Emerson then passes away in 1843 leaving the Scott family to his wife Eliza Irene Sanford. Dred Scott then labored for many years and saved his money, the Scott’s sought to buy their freedom from Sanford but Eliza refused to give them freedom. Dred then sued Sanford in a state court, saying that he was legally free because he and his family lived in a territory where slavery was banned. In 1850 the state court finally declared Scott free but, with a catch. They held Scott’s wages and during the time that this was being processed Eliza remarried and left her brother John to deal
On April 6,1846, Dred and Harriet Scott had each filed separate petitions in the Circuit Court of St.Louis so they could gain their freedom from Irene Emerson. Francis Murdock happened to be their lawyer, he was unable to read or write, He relied on advice from the Blow family, which he had renewed contact since he had returned to St.Louis. Harriet Scott had knew John Anderson, which was the minister of the Second African Baptist Church, that had helped all of the other slaves file their petitions for their freedom in the Missouri Courts. It was definitely very uncommon for the slaves to sue for freedom if they were living in free states for that period of time. He had lived in a free territory for the past decade, so it definitely had seemed as though his case would have a positive outcome. With all the financial and all the legal help of the Blow brothers, Henry and Taylor, and all their friends, Dred and Harriet’s cases were both dismissed on technicality. Their lawyer’s had quickly moved for a new trial. Irene Emerson quickly made several arrangements for the Scott’s to be put under the charge of the St.Louis County Sheriff. Almost Ten years, from March 17,1848, to March 18,1857, He and his family would be in the sheriffs custody. The sheriff was in total control for hiring out the Scotts and for collecting and for keeping all of
“Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils. The unhappy man who has been treated as a brute animal, too frequently sinks beneath the common standard of the human species. The galling chains, that bind his body, do also fetter his intellectual faculties, and impair the social affections of his heart… To instruct, to advise, to qualify those, who have been restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil liberty… and to procure for their children an education calculated for their future situation in life; these are the great outlines of the annexed plan, which we have adopted.” - Benjamin Franklin. When Benjamin Franklin said this, he was speaking in 1789 promoting the abolition of slavery so long before the civil war. He was one of the many abolitionists that had been fighting for freedom years before the main events of the abolition movement during the abolition movement. Dred Scott was served wrongly by slave owning judges. The Abolition Movement and The Dred Scott decision are about people standing up for others being treated wrongly.
The reason why Dred Scott decided to pursue his freedom is unknown, but there are a couple theories. For example, it is believed that “most likely, Scott decided to bring his case to court after years of [talks] with other slaves that had done the same.” (Herda, 30) This shows that, Scott was not an ignorant, uninformed man and had reason to believe he could obtain freedom for himself and his family. This also shows that he took a long look at the issue before making the decision to sue for his freedom. In addition, he may have also been convinced by “several talks with his old friends, the Blows, who were sympathetic to his troubles.” (Herda, 30) This shows that his previous owners, turned friends, the Blows, may have been a major influence; being Scott’s staunch supporters throughout his life. This also shows that the Blows encouragement, on top of other slave’s actions, may have been what finally convinced Scott to pursue the suit for his freedom. In conclusion, several factors convinced Scott to sue for his freedom including the opinion of his previous owners, the Blows. 188
Being born into slavery meant that Dred Scott had been exchanged from owners to owners (Knappman 16-17). His first owner, the Blows, died, and before their death, they sold Scott to Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson soon gave Scott away to his wife’s brother, Sanford (Knappman 16-17). Scott tried to buy his freedom away from Dr. Emerson’s wife but she just wouldn’t accept (Dred Scott Decision 1). Since Scott moved from place to place as a slave, he was able to go to Illinois, which was a free state (Richie 40). Because of the Constitution, Scott used his rights to sue Sanford claiming that he was a free man (Richie 40). With this in mind, it lead to arguments about both parties, the prosecuted and the defendant.
It began numerous events that led up to freeing of all slaves. Anti-slavery leader, Abraham Lincoln, in the North read about the controversial Supreme Court decision and was disgusted with the verdict and vowed to prohibit slavery in all territories of American (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). Conversely, many southern Americans agreed with the court decision and wanted to extend southern culture throughout the nation (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). They wanted to use a means of Cultural Hegemony throughout the nation in order for complete control of the union.