Essay PreviewMore ↓
The Dred Scott decision was an important ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that had a significant influence on the issue of slavery. The case was decided in 1857 and, in effect, declared that no black--free or slave--could claim United States citizenship. Slaves were viewed as property, and such had no individual right.
Furthermore, the decision indicated that Congress could not prohibit slavery in United States territories. I believe that the decision was morally wrong and failed to recognize the rights of people to be free. In addition, the ruling had many political and social implications, aroused angry resentment in the North and led the nation a step closer to civil war. The decision was finally overridden after the Civil War with the introduction and passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, adopted in 1868, extended citizenship to former slaves and gave them the benefit and protection of individual rights. (textbook, 295)
The Dred Scott the decision involved a slave owned by U.S. Army surgeon, John Emerson. Emerson lived in Missouri, a state that permitted slavery. In 1834, Scott went to live with Emerson in Illinois, a state that prohibited slavery. They later lived in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. In 1838, Scott returned to Missouri with Emerson. Emerson died in Missouri in 1843, and three years later, Scott sued the surgeon's widow for his freedom.
Scott based his suit on the argument that his former residence in a free state and a free territory--Illinois and Wisconsin--made him a free man. A state circuit court ruled in Scott's favor, but the Missouri Supreme Court later reversed the decision. Meanwhile, Scott had become legally regarded as the property of John F. A. Sanford of New York. Because Sanford did not live in Missouri, Scott's lawyers were able to transfer the case to a federal court. This court ruled against Scott, and his lawyers then took the case to the Supreme Court. By a majority of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott could not bring a suit in a federal court. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking for the majority, declared that Scott could not do so because blacks were not U.S. citizens.
The court could have simply dismissed the case after ruling on Scott's citizenship. But there was a growing national desire for a ruling on the constitutionality of such laws as the Missouri Compromise.
How to Cite this Page
"Dred Scott Desicion." 123HelpMe.com. 29 Mar 2020
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- On June 19th 1862 the US Congress prohibits slavery in the United States territories nullifying the Dred Scott Case. This was the most important day in US history for African Americans. This is because it helped blacks gain the rights they deserve. It also gave them rights they never thought they could achieve. This Court case of Scott vs. Sanford was a catalyst to riots, other court cases such as Brown vs. Board of Education, Rachel vs. Walker and many acts and amendments resulted from one mans wish to be free.... [tags: American History, African Americans ]
1923 words (5.5 pages)
- The Impact of the Dred Scott Case on the United States The Dred Scott Case had a huge impact on the United States as it is today. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments have called it the worst Supreme Court decision ever rendered and was later overturned. The Dred Scott Decision was a key case regarding the issue of slavery; the case started as a slave seeking his rightful freedom and mushroomed into a whole lot more. 65 The reason why Dred Scott decided to pursue his freedom is unknown, but there are a couple theories.... [tags: Dred Scott Case Supreme Court Slavery Essays]
1457 words (4.2 pages)
- The Dred Scott case of 1857 was one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in American history. The decision proved that America did not condemn slavery and in fact allowed it to fester in the society of the mid nineteenth century. Dred Scott was an African-American slave whose name became known throughout the fledgling nation of the United States of America. Most of Scott’s origins remain unknown because slaves in America had little to no formal papers of identification, and legal records were not kept for slaves.... [tags: Slavery in the United States, United States]
720 words (2.1 pages)
- According to the Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776, "[...] all men are created equal, [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." One would then expect that every man, would be entitled to their freedom, and it was true, for all white men. African-Americans, however, faced a very different reality. They were still forced into slavery, they were deprived of those rights that all men were meant to have.... [tags: Slavery]
736 words (2.1 pages)
- Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court.... [tags: American History, Slavery, Freedom]
917 words (2.6 pages)
- In 1857, the United States Supreme Court made a stunning decision to uphold slavery in the territories, denied the legality of black citizenship, and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case, DRED SCOTT VS. SANDFORD reached the Supreme Court in 1857 after the Missouri Supreme Court against Scott in 1852. Scott’s next step was to take his case out of the state judicial system and into the federal judicial system. After going through the U.S Circuit Court for the District of Missouri it was finally heard by the Supreme Court.... [tags: Slavery in the United States]
1059 words (3 pages)
- 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.... [tags: U.S. History ]
1109 words (3.2 pages)
- Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia around the 1800's. Around 1833 he was purchased from his original owner, Peter Blow, by John Emerson, an officer in the United States Army. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott to the free state of Illinois to live, and under it's constitution, he was eligible to be free. In around 1836, Dred Scott and his owner moved to Wisconsin territory, a territory that was free under the Missouri compromise. It was in Wisconsin that Dred Scott met and married Harriet Robinson.... [tags: Legal Law]
1089 words (3.1 pages)
- The Dred Scott Decision The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps on the road to secession. Dred Scott was a slave who was taken to Missouri from Virginia and sold. His new master then moved to Illinois (a free state) for a while but soon moved back to Missouri. Upon his master's death, Scott claimed that since he had resided in a free state, he was consequentially a free man. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court. As stated by Supreme Court Justice C.... [tags: American History]
2548 words (7.3 pages)
- In this position paper I will explain the trials that Dred Scott had to go through in his life in his attempts for justice to be served. Dred Scott was born in 1799, and was an illiterate slave. His parents were slaves and so he was born the property of the Peter Blow family. In 1804 The United States took possesion of Missouri and after many debates on whether or not it would be a slavery state, a resolution known as the Missouri Compromise came along. This made a balance in the number of free and slave states, the problem was that Missouri was located right in the middle of what was the freedom and slavery.... [tags: essays research papers]
790 words (2.3 pages)
Dred Scott himself was sold shortly afterward. His new owner gave him his freedom two months after the Supreme Court decision. (Funk & Wagnall encyclopedia volume 8 1986)
The Dred Scott decisions was applauded by Southerns who believed they could now extend slavery to all the territories. In essence, it supported the views held by the South that slaves were property, not citizens who had individual rights. Thus they could be bought and sold in manner no different the other property. They were not protected by the constitutional garentee to individual freedom. However, in the north the reaction was quite different. The North was very unhappy and pledged to try to stop the spread of slavery. Indeed, Frederick Douglas said that the decision was wrong as it was "an attempt to blot out forever the hopes of all enslaved people".
The decision, supported by the South, helped enforce their way of life and their belief that slaves were property. They used slaves as cheap labor to work the fields. Slaves had no rights and were not given the respect of private family life or basic human rights. Politically, the decision further divided the North from the South. The South believed that state rights controlled their law, not federal rules. The North believed that a strong nation should have laws that control certain rights otherwise decided by states. The slaves, viewed as property in the South became a hotly debated subject, particularly as it offended the North's sense of right and wrong.
To source, the decision may have been a product of our system of government where in the courts can not write laws but only can fairly interpret those laws passed by congress. Thus, the issue before the court was one that merely called for the court to interpret what had been framed as an issue regarding property in that slaves were not citizens and were simply viewed as owned by other individuals. In the basis that a owner of property can not be denies his right to own such property by unfair government rules.
Unfortunately, presented with the question of the right to own property, the court could only answer that question affirmatively. Likely, the court would not distinguish between land and human beings once that they were both equated to merely being property. This could only change when the constitution was amended and slavery prohibited.
Dred Scott was terrible decision that focused on human beings as if they were property. It is a poor example of judicial interpretation and ultimately helped fan the fires that lead to the Civil War. The decision entirely failed to balance the rights and respect for individuals granted each person in the Bill of Rights. Rather, it based its rationale on the rules assuring people of their rights to property, ignoring that other human beings were the very property in question. It failed to provide any moral direction for the nation and lost an opportunity to advance the rights of those in need.