Dred Scott versus Sanford case is a superior ruling about a slave fighting for his freedom that took over a decade to come to a verdict. Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia, he married his wife Harriet, and had two daughters: Eliza and Lizzie. The Scott family had saved up enough money to buy their freedom from their owner (Sanford), but the owner rejected their offer. Thus, starting the dispute between Scott and Sanford. Scott attempted to sue Sanford several times. He made claims such as, “Sanford had assaulted the plaintiff; one that he had assaulted Harriet Scott, his wife; and one, that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott, his children” (Supreme Court 1857). The court ruled that Sanford was not guilty and that …show more content…
The case finally had a chance when the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were adopted. The Thirteenth Amendment declared that, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The Fourteenth Amendment admitted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” and forbids states from denying any person “life, liberty or property, without due process of law” or to “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These Amendments ended slavery and set the foundation of citizenship of everyone. Two months after the Supreme Court’s decision, Sanford sold Dred Scott and his family to the Blow family, who freed them in May of 1857, thus ending the drawn out debate over Scott’s freedom. Dred Scott versus Sanford was a major event on the road to the Civil War. The U.S. Supreme Court labeled it as the “most consequential opinion” ever issued. The judge announced that Scott had never been free, because slaves were personal property; therefore, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the Federal Government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories. The new Republican Party was founded to prohibit the spread of slavery, which led to the election of Abraham Lincoln as the United States President and drove the country upon the verge of a Civil
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 election of Abraham Lincoln and the secession of the South led to the outbreak of the civil war. The civil war was the first revolutionary change in America. States' rights were a major issue during this time. Issues of power, different interpretations of the constitution, and banking issues led to many difficulties. South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union. In South Carolina's Declaration of Causes, it was stated that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states" (Document A). The 10th amendment which limited the power of the federal government had acted as a backing for the secession of the South. Nowhere in the constitution did it say that the states had no right to secede from the Union. This secession from the union forever changed the country. Another major change that occurred after the civil war was the thirteenth amendment which abolished slavery. Even though the slaves had fought for the Union in the civil war, they were unable to take any political action and were still inferior as it is stated in document C. The fifteenth amendment granted the right to vote to all men no matter the race. It was argued t...
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.
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.
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 end of the Mexican-American War in 1848, the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1852, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, and the outcome of the Presidential Election of 1860 all helped contribute to southern secession and the start of the Civil War. They each caused conditions that either strengthened the abolitionist cause, strengthened the pro-slavery cause, or strengthened both causes respectively; although the conditions made many Southerners want to leave the United After winning the Mexican-American War in 1848, the United States gained the western territories, which included modern-day California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, as well as parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma. However, controversial topics, that helped cause the Civil War, arose with the addition of these new territories. Primarily, the people of the United States wanted to know whether the new territories would be admitted as free states or slave states. In order to avoid fighting between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North, Henry Clay (Whig) and Stephen Douglas (Democrat) drafted the Compromise of 1850.... ...
After considering a suit from Dred Scott, a slave who lived in the free territory of Illinois, the Supreme Court in 1857 rejected Scott’s appeal for diversity jurisdiction and barred citizenship to people of African descent. Additionally, the Court deemed the Missouri Compromise, a law balancing free and slave states, unconstitutional. Although Taney cites history, miscegenation laws, and traditional views of race, his arguments ultimately rely on pathos-filled appeals to the core demographic of the Court’s ruling, white Southern slaveholders.
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
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.
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.
...ers mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney's decision said that slaves were, "...so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.
With tensions at an all time high and the nation at a potential breaking point, the decision in the Dred Scott Case came as a surprise to both the North and the South. The decision had drastic consequences, southern principles were validated while northern liberties were threatened. Therefore it is not surprising that The New York Herald and The Charleston Mercury had very different view points and reporting styles. The northern newspaper viewed the decision’s impact as having “tremendous consequences,” the article included how the Supreme Court’s ruling dismantled northern states’ rights, threatened their liberty and state constitutions. While the southern newspaper saw the decision as a “triumph” for southern rights, likely because it granted and validated property rights, and limited Congress’ political debates over slavery. The Federal government could no longer meddle in state affairs and ended the need for compromises between anti and pro-slavery states. Although the North and the South had very different opinions on the decision’s impact, one thing was clear this decision was not the end of the agitation between anti and pro-slavery states. Political agitations prior to the Dred Scott case influenced how this dynamic decision was viewed and reported in The New York Herald, “The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case, and Its Tremendous Consequences” and in The Charleston Mercury, “The Dred Scott Case-The Supreme Court on the Rights of the South”.