Dred Scott Decision Research Paper

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. While the north states opposed slavery, it was permitted in the south, and as the slavery issue raged on, one man would stand to fight for his freedom. His case, would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's decision would

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

　　　　The Dred Scott decision was significant because it was the first time since Marbury v. Madison that the Supreme Court said an act of congress was unconstitutional. It said the congress had no power to ban slavery in the federal territories; therefore, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. By doing this, the Court also said people in the territories had no right to decide whether their state should be a free or a slave state. This was known as popular sovereignty. The decision also hurt the new Republican Party which was trying to stop the spread of slavery. Further, this decision continued the conflict over slavery between the north and south and

Until the 12th of April, 1861, the United States had never seen a war as big as the Civil War. The country, that, during the Revolutionary War, was small and united; now, was deeply divided by a (somewhat) imaginary line. This separated the Union into two independent countries: the Confederate States of America, also called the South or Confederacy, was pro slavery; and the United States of America, also called the North or Union, was against slavery. This division was long awaited. As someone who was against slavery on moral grounds, the election of Abraham Lincoln caused the secession of the following slave states in the Deep South: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas. After the Battle of Fort Sumter,

Although the Dred Scott case broke the Missouri Compromise which placed restrictions on slavery in some U.S. territories. This case became a rallying point for the abolitionists leading to the election of Abraham Lincoln. The Dred Scott case eventually got people to stop protesting slavery, but the Court had broken the Missouri Compromise and people in the North were outraged. The Dred Scott decision is important because although it was intended to settle the question of slavery, it adopted a strong view and let

In the 1780s, there was a question of whether slavery would be tolerable in new territories to threaten the Union. Throughout the decades, many compromises were made to avoid disunion. But the Constitution was not clear on this subject which created quite the discussion nationwide when raised in 1857 before the Supreme Court in the form of the Dred Scott case. The Dred Scott decision was an eye-opener to Northerners that believed slavery was acceptable as long as it stayed in the South. If the decision took away any power Congress once had to regulate slavery in new territories, slavery could quickly expand into much of the western United States. Realizing that once slavery expanded into those territories, it could quickly spread into the once-free states. Many Northerners remained silent on the issue, this very possibility was too scary to ignore. Northerners who had not previously been against the South and against slavery began to realize that if they did not stop slavery now, they might never again have the chance. The growing fear in the North helped further contributed to an ongoing dispute between the two sides which eventually lead to the Civil War. A couple years after Chief Justice Taney read Scott v. Sandford decision, half of the Union had seceded and the nation was engaged in civil war. However, because of the passions it created on both sides, Taney 's decision certainly quickly accelerated the start of conflict. Even in 1865, as the long and bloody

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)

As stated above, the rapid spread of abolitionists in the northern states and the pro-slavery activism in the southern states, the United States of America was soon torn apart. In the year of 1820, an act known as the Missouri Compromise was passed, and slavery was banned from all newly created western territories. This passing caused a lot of tension in the southern states because they believed it was going to eventually diminish their industrial success. A few decades later in 1857, the United States Supreme Court made a new legal principle known as the Dred Scott Decision, which stated that African slaves (in the slave

In 1861 the American Civil War started. The country was divided into the North (Union) and The South (Confederates). Robert E. Lee was the leading general for the South. Ulysses S. Grant was the leading General for the North. The Union had 23 states which were California,Michigan,Connecticut,Minnesota,Illinois,New Hampshire,Indiana,New Jersey,Iowa,New York,Kansas,Ohio,Maine,Oregon,Massachusetts,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island,VErmont,West Virginia and Wisconsin. The South on the other hand only had 11 which were Alabama,Arkansas,Florida,Georgia,Louisiana,Mississippi,North and South Carolina,Tennessee,Texas and Virginia. The North and many ways had a great advantage in the war because they had more men, more factories to build supplies, and a larger navy. On the other hand the South only had to defend their land from the Invading Union.

The war was between states’ rights and the power of the national government to maintain the Union. For 40 years the questions of states’ rights were deflected by compromises and questions about nullification action by states when they disagreed with the federal government. Finally, it did take a civil war to determine who was right - those of states’ rights or those of federal control. The outcome said that the federal government had the final say. Hundreds of Americans died to settle this argument, but not one of them was a slave

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.

President Lincoln, who believed that blacks should be free, led the north. They called themselves the Union. Jefferson Davis, who did not want slavery eradicated, led the south. They called themselves the Confederacy. At the start, the Confederacy took a defensive stand by state secession and asking independence from the Union. It was only when the Union refused

The Civil War started because of an argument whether slavery should be allowed or not. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that (abraham Lincoln). Soon seven states in the south formed their new nation named the confederate states of America. The leader of the confederate states was General Robert E. Lee. With firm conviction, Lincoln proclaimed South Carolina's severance illicit and swore to go to war to secure the government union in 1861. On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Confederate army to General Ulysses S. Grant. Abraham Lincoln had won the Civil

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

see a stage play depicting the killing of the babies that were murdered in conjunction with his birth. You will not see merchants depicting in their stores windows the end of man’s ruler ship on earth, and the pending judgment of our creator ‘wrath” these are not marketable elements of our messiah’s birth, but adding lies to his birth story sales, and keeps the message and his mission hidden for the sake of the world season of profits.