The Dredd Scott Case
The Dredd Scott case involved a landmark decision in the history of the Supreme Court, in the history of the United States the decision in this case was one of the most damaging statements in the history of the Supreme Court, involving the citizenship of a black person in the United States, and the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise in 1820. The history of a black man named Dredd Scott states that he was a slave originally owed by a family by the name of Blow, which ended up selling him in 1833 to an army surgeon by the name of Dr. John Emerson of St. Luis. Due to his involvement as an army surgeon, Emerson was transferred to numerous places such as Rock Island, Illinois, Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin Territory then back to St. Louis in the end of 1838. Scott had accompanied Emerson throughout this period. Emerson had taken Scott to places that forbidden slavery according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and Scott was even allowed to marry during this! time period on free territory, his companion being a woman who was also a slave owned by Emerson. As Emerson and Scott had returned to St. Louis, a territory where slavery was legal, Emerson died and Scott was left to his widow, who eventually gave Scott back to his original owners, the Blows. Henry Blow,
Scott’s original master, was opposed to the extension of slavery into the Western territories, and Blow lent Scott’s residence on free soil in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory had made him a free man. In 1846, Dredd Scott brought suit in the state court on the grounds that residence in a free territory released him from slavery. A lower state court had found to be in favor of Scott, but in 1852, the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that upon his return to territory where slavery was legal, the status of
slavery was reattached to him and therefore he had no standing before the court. The case was brought before the federal circuit court, which took jurisdiction, but held against Scott. The case was taken on appeal to the Supreme Court, where it was argued at length in 1855 and 1856 and finally decided in 1857.
The decision handed down by a majority of the vote of the court was that there was no power in the in the existing form of government to make citizens slave or free, !
and at the time of the formation of the US Constitution they were not and could not be citi...
... middle of paper ...
...than presiding over a session of the circuit court), Taney on the 28th of May, 1861, declared Merryman entitled to his freedom on the grounds that he was illegally detained. In an unusual move, he filed and opinion condemning Merryman’s arrest as an arbitrary and illegal denial of civil liberty.
Taney stated that military detention of civilians like Merryman was unconstitutional because only congress had authority to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus. Taney described the president as a mere administrative officer charged with faithful enforcement of the laws. according to the Chief Justice this amounted to a constitutional duty not to execute the laws "as they are expanded and adjudged by the
co-ordinate branch of the government, to which that duty is assigned by the constitution." Taney sent a copy of his opinion to Lincoln. President Lincoln justified his action in a message to Congress in July 1861. He reasoned further that the framers did not intend that in an emergency no action should be taken to protect the public safety by suspending Habeas Corpus until Congress should be assembled. More importantly he ignored Taney’s opinion. Merryman, however, was later released.
The Indian Act no longer remains an undisputable aspect of the Aboriginal landscape in Canada. For years, this federal legislation (that was both controversial and invasive) governed practically all of the aspects of Aboriginal life, starting with the nature of band governance and land tenure. Most importantly, the Indian act defines qualifications of being a “status Indian,” and has been the source of Aboriginal hatred, due to the government attempting to control Aboriginals’ identities and status. This historical importance of this legislation is now being steadily forgotten. Politically speaking, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal critics of the Indian act often have insufferable opinions of the limits of the Indian Act’s governance, and often argue to have this administrative device completely exterminated. Simultaneously, recent modern land claim settlements bypass the authority of the Indian Act over specific groups.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
The first interpretation of sovereignty that is examined by Flanagan views sovereignty in an international sense. Sovereignty for these leaders means gaining more international power and acceptance. Flanagan argues that major international bodies such as the United Nations will be accepting such an attempt at sovereignty (71). As the second largest country in the world the geographical constraints on uniting Aboriginal people living across the country plays a significant factor. Flanagan also points to the diversity within this group; there are over six hundred bands across the ten provinces in Canada in more than 2,200 reserves. Compounding the geographical constraints facing their unity, Aboriginal bands in Canada often differ from each other significantly in their culture including language religion/customs (Flanagan 71). Many Aboriginal people now choose to live off reserve which further complicates their unity (Flanagan 73). Flanagan highlights that as many small bodies they would not be able to survive in the competition of the international community. Current international governance is extremely complex and Flanagan argues it is unlikely for poor isolated people to succeed (73). One united aboriginal voice is also highly unlikely according to Flanagan; having been freed of one power most bands would not choose to become conne...
Lincoln justified his action via the suspension clause, claiming that Congress was in recess and therefore could not fulfill its duty at the time. The Constitution itself specifically references habeas corpus and acknowledges that it can be suspended “in cases of rebellion,” however, as Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted in the ruling of Ex parte Merryman (1861), the writ of habeas corpus falls exclusively in the hands of Congress in Section 9 of Article 1“without the slightest reference to the executive branch.” Additionally, Article 6 provides all persons accused the “right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury of the state.” Both provisions, Justice Taney stated, are in “language too clear to be misunderstood by anyone.” The ruling concluded by declaring that President Lincoln’s actions in suspending habeas corpus in Maryland were unconstitutional as he did so without proper congressional authorization. According to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland, Lincoln had overstepped his appropriate executive authority as
It is also possible that his original lawyer Samuel Mansfield Bay saw opportunities for a large reward due to his services to Scott, and initiated litigation. For example, some feel that Bay’s “object was to pave the way for a suit against the Emerson estate for the twelve years’ wages to which Scott would be entitled to,” (Herda, 29) should he win the case. This shows that, money could have been the driving force behind this case. This also shows that Scott may have been persuadable to another person’s reasons for pursuing the case. In addition, if this was true and Scott “had been illegally held as a slave since 1834.” (Herda, 30) This shows that, he would have the right to compensation, and therefore be entitled to what would be a lot of money. This also shows, how a mistake by a master in his traveling...
Until the 16th century, Aboriginal people were the only inhabitants of what is now Canada, hence, they were an independent and self-governing people till the Europeans had the capacity to dominate Canada's original inhabitants and possessors (Elias 1). The European Invasion brought about The 1876 Indian Act, which was developed over time through separate pieces of colonial legislation regarding Aboriginal peoples across Canada such as the Gradual Civilization Act of 1857 and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act of 1869. In 1876, these acts were consolidated as the Indian Act (Hanson). This essay aims to explain how the Indian Act tried to destroy the Aboriginal culture through residential schools and unequal recognition of women, successive acts,
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...
Although the Canadian government has done a great deal to repair the injustices inflicted on the First Nations people of Canada, legislation is no where near where it needs to be to ensure future protection of aboriginal rights in the nation. An examination of the documents that comprise the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reveal that there is very little in the supreme legal documents of the nation that protect aboriginal rights. When compared with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples it is clear that the Canadian Constitution does not acknowledge numerous provisions regarding indigenous people that the UN resolution has included. The most important of these provisions is the explicit recognition of First Nations rights to their traditional lands, which have a deep societal meaning for aboriginal groups. Several issues must be discussed to understand the complex and intimate relationship all aboriginal societies have with the earth. Exploration into the effects that the absence of these rights has had the Cree of the Eastern James Bay area, will provide a more thorough understanding of the depth of the issue. Overall, the unique cultural relationship First Nations people of Canada have with Mother Earth needs to be incorporated into the documents of the Canadian Constitution to ensure the preservation and protection of Canadian First Nations cultural and heritage rights.s
“The recognition of the inherent right of self-government is based on the view that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada have the right to govern themselves in relation to matters that are internal to their communities, integral to their unique cultures, identities, traditions, languages and institutions, and with respect to their special relationship to their land and resources." (Wherrett
‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ - Abraham Lincoln on the Dred Scott Decision. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger B Taney made the Dred Scott Decision on March 6th, 1860. They also declared the missouri compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. This all caused northerners and abolitionists to get angry at the south and the supreme court. This decision showed where the government stood on the issue of slavery and abolition and further fueled the flame of war between the north and south. Scott took his slave owner to court to sue for his fr...
Dred Scott vs. Sandford was a very influential case during the mid-1800s. The case took place in 1857; however, the events leading up to it began in 1833. Dr. John Emerson had bo...
Taney, ruled that “The case lacked jurisdiction to take Scott’s case, because Scott had been a slave (McBride 1).” There was a 7-2 decision for Sandford from the justices of the nine member chamber (US history 1).
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.
Powers N. R., 1992, The Transition to Democracy in Paraguay: Problems and Prospectus, University of Notre Dame
...only been entered once. This is very different from the legacy system many systems are coming from. It has been found that over 70% of organizations who have implemented SAP say that they have increased data quality and visibility (Doane, pg. 110) In order for SAP to work correctly, it is paramount that data be correct because so many employees rely on this information, so it is a benefit that many businesses will benefit from as a result. SAP also helps with the transparency and responsibility in a company. Responsibilities are clearly defined and it allows them to see just how their actions within the company affect others downstream. SAP removes the silo effect often experienced by many companies. Because people know what affects they have on others, it improves their quality of work and as a result improves the quality across the business (Eresource, page 1).