Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact on the dred scott case
Dred scott case impact of the decision
Discuss the ethics of civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact on the dred scott case
Dred Scott v. Sanford case of 1857 was a very controversial case in the United States. The Supreme Court ruling is considered to be the worst in history and one of the leading causes of the Civil War. The Supreme Court said that Americans of African descent, free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. This ruling was unconstitutional because the Constitution states that “all Men are created equal.” This ruling is also violating your 14th amendment rights. I don’t think there is a difference between legal and ethics. They both are based on you making the right decisions and abiding by the code of conduct within yourself as well as the law set in place. The majority of the justice seemed to use the ethical perspective of the time period. What I mean by this is …show more content…
The Scotts moved back into a slave territory voluntarily until Dr. Emerson’s work was done. Eventually, the couple ended up back in St. Louis where they were hired out to grocers upon their return to the state. In 1843 Dr. Emerson died and their ownership transferred to his wife Eliza Irene Emerson. Mrs. Emerson did not travel like her husband did so this meant that the Scotts were stuck in a slave state and couldn’t be free. In 1846, The Scotts decided to sue Mrs. Emerson for their freedom. They argued that because they lived in a free state and territories where slavery was prohibited they were actually already free and have been since their time spent in Illinois and Wisconsin territory. The Peter Blow family Dred Scotts previous owners helped them sue Mrs. Emerson for their freedom. Missouri law and court president agreed with the Scotts most lawmakers and judges supported the principles once free always free. Many court cases followed the Scotts petition in the first trial in 1847. The Scotts still lost the case in state court because the judge ruled that the evidence didn’t completely prove that Mrs. Emerson owned the Scotts because she left them with her
Doris Reed bought a house for $76,000.00 from Robert King. Mr. King and his real estate agent failed to disclose to Mrs. Reed that a murder had taken place in the home ten years ago. Neighbors told Mrs. Reed about the murders and the stigma associated with the house after she moved in. The property appraised in the amount of $65,000.00 with reference to the history of the house. Reed sued King on allegations of misrepresentation for the purchase of the home seeking rescission and damages to terminate the contact.
questions arise: 1st.[sic] Was [Scott], together with his family, free in Missouri by reason of his stay in the territory of the United States hereinbefore mentioned? And 2d[sic], If they were not, is Scott himself free by reason of his removal to Rock Island, in the state of Illinois...?" Both of these questions led to an even greater and more central question: "Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and priveledges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?" (i.e. does Scott, having been a slave, have the constitutional right to sue?)
The case of Graham v. Connor is about DeThorne Graham a diabetic that had an insulin reaction, and was pulled over and stopped by Officer Connor. The case is important because it has set the bar when it comes to other cases and the use of force and violation of Fourth Amendment rights.
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
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 Dred Scott decision involved two slaves, Dred Scott and his wife, who originated from one of the recognized slave states, Missouri, but they were relocated to settle in Wisconsin, a state where slavery was prohibited. In 1846, Scott filed a lawsuit and “sued for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in a free state and a free territory had made him free.” In 1854, Scott’s “case ultimately went to the Supreme Court.” By landing in the Supreme Court, the justices ruled seven to two against the Dred Scott and his wife for multiple reasons. One main reason that the court specified was that whether African Americans are enslaved or not, they were never recognized as citizens of the United States. Therefore, the justices believed that the case should not have been heard or discussed in the Supreme Court to begin with. The second reason was that regardless of any African American being transferred to a free state, does not necessarily change their social status. Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a compromise that outlawed slavery north of the 36˚30’ latitude line, is unconstitutional because the Congress declared that they had “no power to ban slavery from any territory.” The decision was critical due to increasing the North population’s unease, and their concern that the South will begin to transport slaves to freed states, which will
Around the 1850’s, tension between the Northern states and the Southern states was rising. The issue of slavery was a conflict that greatly contributed to this tension. The Northern and Southern people had very different views on slavery. Most of the Northern people thought that slavery was wrong, while the Southern people thought that slavery was justified. During this time, a court case filed by a black slave against his white slave master occurred and it widened the gap between them even more. The idea of a black man suing for his freedom was ridiculous to most of the Southern people. My second paragraph is about Dred Scott’s life. It will mostly be about his life before the case. The third paragraph will be information about the case in court. It will include many facts from the trials. The fourth paragraph will tell of the United States Supreme Court decision and its effects. It will also include people’s reactions to the final decision.
Dred Scott was a slave. His master was an army surgeon who was based in Missouri. In the early 1830's and 1840's his master and him traveled to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory. It was in 1846 that Scott sued his master's widow for freedom. His argument was that the state of ...
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
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.
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.
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...
It is important to first understand the difference between law and ethics. Ethics examines the values and actions of people. Often times there is no one right course of action when one is faced with an ethical dilemma. On the other hand, laws
In my opinion, ethics give people free will to make right choices. People have free will to make choices that are governed with responsibility, accountability, and liability. We have a responsibility to perform in an ethical manner and be accountable for our choices or actions. Regardless of the circumstances and choices we make, there are consequences if we make the wrong choice. The question of whether an action or choice is ethical or not is fundamentally based on whether something is right or wrong. From an ethical standpoint, unethical choices and risky behavior can lead to increased liabilities. The liabilities result in the loss or damage sustained by a company or other party as result of an unethical and sometimes illegal decision. Although we exercise free will on a continuous basis, we are governed by the decisions we make and my belief is that the decisions we make daily do not just affect us. These decisions affect other people, such as family, friends, coworkers, instructors, neighbors, etc. The most prominent example of ethics can be recognized in the field of technology based on the growing amount of rapidly changing legislation and acts that under consideration in order to protect people from unethical practices.
To be ethical also meant that one has to be reasonable. Although most people would relate the term ethics with feelings but feelings can be unstable making it hard to make rational decisions. No doubt that emotions are powerful, but they’re also temporary causing regrets if unwanted actions does take place. When one is angry, frustrated, jealous, or sad, it’s hard to separate what is right from wrong. People have been killed or seriously injured only because they have cut someone off on the road or say some things that the other person did not like hearing. "Reason" on the other hand are supposed to guide people in the right direction and avoid what is bad. People have to live their life with reasons. Take a war, for an example, if people were going to war just because they feel like it then thousands of people would end up dead but for what cause? One of the criteria for a “j...