The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 ruled that African-Americans, even ones who were not enslaved, were not protected under The Constitution and could never be citizens. This brings up questions that will be answered in this paper. Should slaves be American citizens? Is it morally correct for one to own another human? Does the Dred Scott decision contradict The Declaration of Independence which states that every man is created equal? Who was Dred Scott? Dred Scott was born in Virginia about 1799 of the Peter Blow family. He had spent his entire life as a slave. Dred Scott moved to St. Louis with the Blows in 1830, but was soon sold due to his master's financial problems. He was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon, and …show more content…
That is a difficult question to answer because citizenship means being able to participate in the process of decision making and the obtaining of rights. Slaves, because they were owned, couldn’t be true citizens because they were denied the basic duties gifts of citizenship. A citizen has freedom to vote, make choices on where they want to live and how to raise their family. The slave had no such right, so being a citizen was impossible. The Three-Fifths Compromise of the Constitution was an agreement between Southern and Northern states in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes for the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. Those who opposed slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Those who supported slavery wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. The so-called compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths was for the benefit of Southern power
The Three-Fifths Compromise was when they counted each slave as 3/5th of a person. The Compromise was more populous to the large states which were: Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. The less populous were the small states which included New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and New York. It was one of the reasons the United States had a civil war between the North and the South. It also ended slavery. Without it the south would have more power in congress and therefore slavery would have never ended because the southern states wanted slavery to be counted fully.
The three-fifths compromise was proposed by delegates Wilson and Sherman at the constitutional convention as a solution for the disputes between the large and small states in terms of representation at the house of representatives, this proposal suggested that states should count every five slaves as three individuals with regards to taxes and distribution of house seats.
The 3/5th compromise was brought about by the question of how to count slaves when deciding sets for the House of Representatives (Monroe 65). Deciding how to count slaves would decide how many seats in the House of Representatives each state would get. If slaves were counted as part of the population then both the north and the south would have equal representation (Monroe 65). The fraction of 3/5ths was agreed upon when James Wilson thought of a way to count the slaves. His idea came from when Congress was trying to raise revenue, they decided that slaves were most likely to make 3/5th of what a free man would make (Monroe 65). Although the idea of one slave counting for less than one man is terrible to think about, this was the beginning
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.
Obviously, that would be greatly unfair to the northern states because the south would have more seats in the House of Representatives meaning unfair representation. As a result, many northern states refused to allow this happen so both regions came to an agreement that allowed slaves to be counted as 3/5 of a person, when doing a census for determining seats in the House of Representatives. Finally, Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 was put into the Constitution making the compromise official. The whole Convention was deadlocked on the slave representation issue which almost completely fell apart if nothing was to be done, but lucky the compromise kept the Constitutional Convention together. Moreover, the men who opposed slavery, but accepted the 3/5 clause did so knowing the Constitution had more good to give than some of the evils written in it. They could have thought the Constitution had provisions written down that could eventually outlaw slavery or maybe they realized this new government was greatly beneficial to all Americans. Although, we can now all agree that even though the 3/5th clause is wrong, it gave America a chance to become a great
INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court case Scott v. Sanford (1857), commonly known as the Dred Scott Case, is probably the most famous case of the nineteenth century (with the exception possibly of Marbury v. Madison). It is one of only four cases in U. S. history that has ever been overturned by a Constitutional amendment (overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments). It is also, along with Marbury, one of only two cases prior to the Civil War that declared a federal law unconstitutional. This case may have also been one of the most, if not the most, controversial case in American history, due simply to the fact that it dealt an explosive opinion on an issue already prepared to erupt - slavery. Thus, many scholars assert that the
Amongst many of the compromises and laws that were created during the establishment of the United States was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which stated that each slave was worth three-fifths of a person.
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 a slave born in Southampton County Virginia and served the Peter Blow family growing up. As an adult he moved with the Blow family to St Louis Missouri and was sold to Dr. John Emerson. Dr. Emerson was an army surgeon. He was appointed to many different military posts and took Scott along with him, from Fort Armstrong in Illinois to Fort Snelling in the Wisconsin territory. Both of these forts were on
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
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
The House of Representatives uses the states' population to determine how many representatives each state receives in the House. In the southern states, they thought that everyone, including slaves, should be counted. The northern states did not think that it was fair to count the slaves in the total population, since there were a lot more slaves in the south than the north. Both sides agreed to the 3/5 Compromise. This compromise said that for every 5 slaves, they would be counted as 3 citizens. Therefore, 60% of the slave population would be used when the states' population is counted. Slavery in the United States lasted until towards the end of the Civil War and even some after the Emancipation Proclamation, since it only freed slaves in the South and not in the North.
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.
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
The next step was the three-fifths Compromise. This three-fifths Compromise involved the population of slavery and its value towards congress. Three-fifths Compromise delegates agreed that every 5 enslaved would count as three free persons. Thus three-fifths of the slave population would be used in determining representation in Congress. That number would also be used in determining