Essay about Chief Justice Taney and Slavery

Unfortunately for the Scotts the circuit ruled in favor of Mrs. Emerson. The Scotts however were allowed to refile their suit and in 1850,in a third trial, Scott is declared a free man on the basis of having lived in non-slavery territories of Wisconsin and Illinois. Mrs. Emerson however filed an appeal and the Missouri Supreme Court returned Scott to slavery. After filing suit once more and losing the case, this time against John Sanford, Irene’s brother who was presumably Scotts new owner, Scott’s lawyers appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court in 1856.The Supreme Court’s decision would “affect not only him, but all black people in the United States.”#

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

Missouri state court declared Scott to be a free man in 1850. During the time that the

Dred Scott was a slave to Peter Blow family who suffered financial constraints then later sold Scott to a surgeon John Emerson. Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling where slavery was not allowed by Missouri Compromise. During his period at Fort Snelling, Scott married Harriet Robinson a slave too with whom they had two children. Emerson and Scott’s family later moved back to St Louis in the year 1940 where they lived. In 1946 Dr. Emerson passed on, and Scott’s family was left behind with Emerson’s widow as their master. After Dr. Emerson demise, Scott sued Emerson’s family arguing that by him having stayed in Fort Snelling, he had attained his freedom while there and he was a free man. In sought of his freedom, the case was presented to State court, but unfortunately, he lost in case. The case was appealed, and in the year 1857, the case was ruled out by Chief Justice Roger Taney. In the ruling, the court ruled out that, Scotts was not allowed to claim any US citizenship as blacks who were salves or free were not allowed to do so. The ruling also claimed that Scotts had never been free as he was a slave and they were considered as personal property (Konig, Finkelman, & Bracey, 2010). The ruling led to consequences and effects in the US that affected the country politically, culturally and legally as outlined in the paper.

To what extent did Dred Scott decision was examined from an incorrect view of the judicial role and viewed as morally incorrect? Due to Chief Justice Taney’s unacceptable error of not reviewing the case through law, the decision led the nation split into two and eventually caused in American Civil War. In this investigation, Chief Justice Taney, who held the majority of votes, actions and behaviors prior of the case will be evaluated for its impact upon a simple freedom case. This investigation will also focus on three questions that Justice Taney claimed after reviewing the case and how it was or was not constitutional. Research will be done in books about Dred Scott’s background and what he has done throughout his life, a reference

Court ruled that Scott was not a citizen and thus had no right to sue. Their Finding was that slaves were

Many times during our class discussions and lectures we tried to examine the stages leading up to the succession and Civil War in America. During the critical time period of the middle 19th century, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision of the Supreme Court was one of those major treads on the pathway to secession. The man Dred Scott was taken to Missouri with Peter Blow as a slave from Virginia and sold. His new master from Missouri then moved to the free state of Illinois for a while, but later moved back to Missouri. Following his master 's passing, Scott asserted that since he had resided in a free state, he was inevitably a free citizen.

Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom. He said that because he was a slave taken to a free state, even though he was brought back to a slave state, made him free. The court ruled that a free or enslaved African American was not a U.S. citizen and they could not sue in federal court. Also, they ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Abolitionists were not happy at the court’s decision.

While it might at first seem superfluous, one of the most important parts of the Fourteenth Amendment was that it provided a definition of who was a citizen of the United States. However, in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Taney had held that, “A free negro of the African race… is not a ‘citizen’ within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States,” and thus, only whites were entitled to constitutional rights. The

There were immensely strong arguments on both sides, regarding Dred Scott and his owner, John Sanford. Sanford believed that Scott should remain a slave because he does not deserve the same rights as whites. Firstly, it was argued that “Dred Scott was still a slave and no master's property rights could be limited or taken away by a state or federal law”. Many people against Scott argued that this case violates the fifth amendment. It states, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” This amendment provides a strong argument against Dred Scott. Essentially, these quotes talk about how Scott is property and Sanford would not sell him without recompense. Another argument involves where Scott and Sanford were located during his slavery. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, argued, “In regard to the issue of Scott's becoming free when he moved to the free State of Illinois, the laws of the

In 1846, a slave living in Missouri named Dred Scott, sued for his freedom on the basis that he had lived for a total of seven years in territories that were closed to slavery. Scott's owner had been an army doctor named John Emerson. Emerson's position had required him to move several times in a relatively short amount of time. During his time with Emerson, Scott had lived in the state of Illinois, which was

Manifesto sees the decision of the supreme court as “clear abuse of judicial power” (1).

Slavery, especially in America, has been an age old topic of riveting discussions. Specialist and other researchers have been digging around for countless years looking for answers to the many questions that such an activity provided. They have looked into the economics of slavery, slave demography, slave culture, slave treatment, and slave-owner ideology (p. ix). Despite slavery being a global issue, the main focus is always on American slavery. Peter Kolchin effectively illustrates in his book, American Slavery how slavery evolved alongside of historical controversy, the slave-owner relationship, how slavery changed over time, and how America compared to other slave nations around the world.

It was the year of 1857 and a robust wind blew through the South as the air was filled with both victory and horrific disappointment. An ordinary man named Dred Scott began his journey for his rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Scott’s struggle for freedom would come to make him one of the most famous plaintiffs in American history and a worldwide symbol for emancipation. Scott happened to be of African descent which was an extremely difficult obstacle to live with in early America. The Dred Scott decision made by the supreme court in March of 1857 negatively impacted the United States by empowering the South, contributing to the secession, and expediting the Civil War.

     One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.