Corruption In Young America

In March 5,1857, after deliberating for several months, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the ruling. The Court determined, by a majority of seven to two, that Dred Scott and his family were still slaves. It stated that even if, the Scotts had traveled into free territory, moving back to St.Louis had made them slaves once more. However, The Court decided to go further and addressed other issues regarding slavery and blacks. On citizenship, the Court decided no black could ever be a citizen, in Taney's own words "slaves nor their descendants, whether... free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people [citizens]"# According to this, Scott was only property , therefore he did not have the right to file suit, and as a result was never free. The Court also decided to rule the

“In 1847, Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom).” “While the immediate issue in this case was Dred Scott’s status, the court also had the opportunity to rule on the question of slavery in the territories, (Appleby et all, 446-447).” One of the main issues of this case was that the justices were trying to settle a political problem rather than being completely fair in their decisions. Dred lost the first trial but was granted a second trial. The next year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

　　　　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

rested above the line 36°30 ' parallel. Scott and his family moved around with Dr.

To start off, in the 1857 case Dred Scott V Sanford rights were violated. In the case Dred Scott vs Sanford, Dred Scott was a slave that was freed by his master, but then was forced to go back to a slave state. Dred Scott thought he deserved to be free. Dred Scott wanted to sue. He was already freed by his master so he shouldn't have had to go back to slave state. Dred Scott's master guarantee him of his freedom, because of that, when it was taken away Dred Scott didn't agree with that resolution and wanted him and his wife to be free. Due to that, the case was taken to court, the judge found that once Dred Scott was freed he was to remain free. (Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sanford)

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.

new slaves in from places. (Lawson, 1987, 21-29) The court still was denying Dred Scotts freedom. Shortly

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

Question 1 Answer: Safeguards of servitude contended that the sudden end to the slave economy would have had a significant and murdering monetary effect in the South where dependence on slave work was the establishment of their economy. The cotton economy would crumple. The tobacco harvest would dry in the fields. Rice would stop being productive. Guards of subjugation contended that if every one of the slaves were liberated, there would be across the board unemployment and tumult.

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

The instance of Dred Scott v. John F.A. Sandford, honest to goodness case in which the U.S. Superior Court on March 6, 1857, decided that a slave who had stayed in a free state and area was not thusly fit the bill for his adaptability; that African Americans were not and could never be subjects of the United States; and that the Missouri Compromise, which had declared free all areas west of Missouri and north of degree, was unlawful. The decision added fuel to the sectional dispute and drove the country closer to regular war.

In the March of 1857 Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in a free state for many years, came before the Supreme Court to argue that he was entitled to emancipation. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that no black

One of the ways Southerners defended slavery was through legal means. Although the economic and religious aspects of slavery helped to directly support the moral argument of pro-slavery Southerners, the legal aspects of slavery served as visible victories and defending events in Southern philosophy. In 1831-1832, Virginia legislature debated and eventually defeated various emancipation proposals. This legislation was a turning point in the pro-slavery fight. An example of is is the Dred Scott Decision. An excellent example of the legal side to the Southern arguments and the Southern definition of popular sovereignty. With the Dred Scott Decision, the courts declared that the whole African American race had no legal standing as persons in courts also that all blacks were seen as property, and the Constitution protected property rights of the people, which includes slave owners. Moreover, pro-slavery Southerners

The Constitution is a plan for the government that was developed in 1789. The government's role is to protect the people's natural rights and provide security for people. Throughout time there have been changes in society, therefore the Constitution should have changes to fit our society. The body of the Constitution is adequate for today’s society but to help keep our rights safe and to have good security, there should be minor changes to the Constitution. The Constitution is corrupt in today’s society because of technological advances, corrupt government officials, and the federal government has too much power over state governments.