Dred Scott Research Paper

Scott’s assertion was that he had become a free black as a result of his residency in Illinois, and as such he could legally sue for his freedom in the state of Missouri after his owner, John Sandford, “laid his hands upon said plaintiff, Harriet, Eliza and Lizzie, and imprisoned them, doing in this respect, however, no more than what he might lawfully do if they were of right his slaves at such times”.[3] Scott sought redress in the federal courts as a citizen of the United States, not as an abused slave, an important distinction.

The Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as a part of the population for the purpose of representation. This would give the Southern states more power in the House of Representatives. However, the Southern states did not want slaves to count as part of the population for taxation purposes (Dahl). The Northern states did not believe that slaves were actually treated as part of the population in Southern states and, therefore, did not believe slaves should be counted towards population. This difference of opinion as to how slaves should be counted led to the creation of the Three-Fifths Compromise. (Dahl, Lecture)

Between 1776 and Constitutional Convention in 1787, ten out of thirteen states banned the importation of slaves from abroad. At the same time, Massachusetts already abolished slavery, Pennsylvania and Connecticut passed legislation for their former slaves. Scholars basically describe the discussion regarding slavery at the Convention as a conflict between “anti-slavery representatives” and “slave state representatives.” In addition, the word “slavery” does not appear on the Constitution because the framers consider it would sully the document. However, slavery received crucial protection in the Constitution. One of the most notorious slavery-related questions was whether slaves would be counted as a part of the population in determining representation in the United States Congress or considered property and thus, have no right to representation. Besides, delegates from states with larger population of slaves claimed that slaves should be considered persons in determining representation. Finally, delegate James Wilson proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was eventually adopted by the convention. The compromise claims "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the

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

The problem of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became a major issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. The population of slaves would be counted as three-fifths in total when apportioning Representatives, as well as Presidential electors and taxes. The Three-Fifths Compromise was proposed by James Wilson and Roger Sherman, who were both delegates for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Initially, taxes were levied not in accordance to the population numbers, but the actual value of the land. This would provide the slaveholders to have many more seats in the House of Representatives and much more representation within the Electoral College. It was James Madison that would suggest the Three-Fifths Compromise to be made .

There were many legal hoops that the Federal Government had to jump through to resolve the expansion of slavery. One of which was the Three Fourths Compromise, which stated that three-fourths of slaves counted towards the total state’s population so the associated state could have more seats in the House of Representatives. In theory, this was supposed to balance out the population discrepancies between the North and South so both had equal power in the House. Another cooperation between State and Federal was the Missouri

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

The main point was that slaves should be counted as three-fifths. The argument was northern and southern states the reasons slavery issue. Because the Southern holds their states as a slave state and adding slave as property on the other way the northern states did not want people as a slave. It was the most controversial issue southern was the large populations the reason won the point because of the percentage. Another main point was the economy totally depended on slavery because cheap labor, but northers was popular in trading like rice, tobacco stuff. They eliminate the fight two states made three-Fifths Compromise. In 1783 the article proposed tax should be a portion of the population, then, had a problem again slaver issue not paying tax equally. It was a great solution to add on three fifths as a

Roche 's article is the only reading that addresses the Three-Fifths Compromise at length. This suggests that while he saw this compromise as important, other authors might not have shared the same viewpoint. In comparison, Estes only mentions it briefly before an in-depth examination of the Connecticut Compromise, despite the fact that both had important consequences on the Electoral College at the time. The Three-Fifths Compromise stipulated that for purposes of legislative representation and taxes, three-fifths of each slave would be counted toward a state 's population. It also provided the South with additional votes in presidential elections.

Dred Scott was born in virginia as a slave in the year of 1795 there was no record of his childhood . In 1830 he arrived to st. louis,missouri from virginia and Alabama he had a good relationship with his owners Petter Blow and Blow wife Elizabeth which help him when his cases started and then they started to know he wasn't as ignorant as they thought he was but however

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.

There were many disagreements and compromises that occurred while in the process of creating the Constitution. Some were: the debate over slavery, the debate of the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan, and the disagreement about the amount of time the president should work. There was a huge debate over slavery and the states were torn between abolishing slavery and owning slaves. A three-fifths clause was created so that slaves would be considered part of the state’s population. Three-fifths of the slave population was a compromise where some of the slaves would be counted “in determining each state’s representation in the House of Representatives and its

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 the Federalist No. 54, James Madison states that only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in a State should be counted when determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives from that State. Madison presents several reasons for counting slaves as three-fifths of a person, he says that the laws consider slaves as property and persons. He adds on that the southern states would think its unfair to include slaves in calculating tax burdens but not in counting the number of representatives apportioned to the states. The Author’s purpose is for both southern and northern states to come into an agreement in order to pass a constitution acceptable to all states. Madison seeks to liberate himself from any responsibility

A slave would be allowed to become a citizen if he could pay his way out or have a pardon by his owner or a representative of the government pardoned. The owner of the slave would have to pay taxes but cannot charge the slave for the taxes.