Summary Of Race Place And The Law By David Delaney

Many slaves fought for their freedom, not just by running away, but also in the court system. For example Dred Scott was taken to a free state by his master and then later returned against his will to a slave state. He fought his master in the court system on the basis that he was a free man since he was in a free state. This court case was taken

Though initially considered to be a ‘compromise’ and intended to lessen the tensions between the North and South, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ultimately served as a vehicle to fight against slavery. Common citizens rebelled against their supposed responsibilities to return slaves to their masters, and resisted the punishments handed down. By polarizing the nation in such a way,

As a result of the North’s victory in the civil war and the reconstruction period that followed, African-Americans were seemingly on the verge of being able to enjoy the freedom of no longer being slaves. During the reconstruction era, important pieces of legislature were written in order to protect the rights of the newly freed men. Those pieces of legislature were essentially trying to somehow transform former slave into free productive members of society. However, a number of disgruntled southerners took it as their duty to prevent African-American from being free of their former masters. They saw the northerners demand as an infringement of the South traditional values. Although the

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)

Even before watching the video, “Race on Trial” I believed that there was racial bias in the justice system and all this video did was reaffirm that. The fact that these two cases were so similar it is no surprise that the judge jumped to race as the only factor that separated their sentences. Even though there are federal sentencing guidelines put in place to prevent/reduce sentencing disparities it still occurs and many have done in depth research on it. In “The Relationship between Race, Ethnicity, and Sentencing Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Sentencing Research” they compared sentencing outcomes of African Americans to whites and saw that 66% of the sentencing outcomes that they studied showed that African Americans had a higher sentencing

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

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.

The topic of whether or not there is racism in the legal system is becoming increasingly debatable among certain groups. The obvious evidence that has been glaring in the faces of the public for decades says it all: the criminal justice system is, and always has been, swayed by racism. Despite this, the opposing side of the argument - which mostly consists of privileged whites – diligently argues that racism was outlawed decades ago. There are also African Americans who are unaware of how their race is constantly being oppressed. However, the younger generation is quickly becoming culturally and politically woke and passing on the knowledge. Although racism is not explicitly stated in the law, racists are still hiding behind the supremacy of the country. White policemen have went as far as mindlessly killing young black people and claiming it was done out of self-defense. White judges will find loopholes in the legal process when dealing with an offense committed by an African American. They are targeting African Americans and punishing them more harshly than the white people who commit crimes.

The question of slavery and the rights of states to decide on the matter for themselves completely controlled politics in the years prior to the Civil War. Laws were passed, such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which made it so any slaves that escaped were to be sent back to their owners. Not only would these runaway slaves be punished severely, but anybody who aided them in escape would also be subject to harsh punishment. These desperate men, women, and children had no protection in the legal system and were left with no options in life other than escape. Many of these escapees had to watch friends and family be beaten, sold, or even killed and were expected to work just as hard, like nothing had happened. After losing everything, it

An approximate of three thousand slaves escaped from their masters in 1781 when the British invaded Virginia (Blumrosen & Blumrosen, 2006). About five thousand and twenty thousand slaves in Georgia and South Carolina, respectively, were freed from bondage as a result of the American Revolution (Clifford, 2005). The Revolution’s natural rights philosophy inspired the freed blacks to request the state legislatures to get rid of slavery and Congress to terminate the slave trade (Waldstreicher, 2004). Many of the freed slaves moved to the North because they believed that living conditions were better in the North than in the South. Unfortunately, they experienced many problems in the North, such as lack of jobs, insufficient food, and lack of housing, which forced many of them to go back to the south to work on the cotton plantations for wages (Clifford, 2005). In the South, the freed slaves were assured of food and housing.

Slavery dominated the economy of the American Southern states during the antebellum period between 1793 and 1850. The dehumanization of these people resulted in them being viewed only as property by many slave-owners, who relied on their slaves in to support their family and plantation. This reliance produced a fear that the slaves would escape, which called for subsequent laws to arise in the South in which return procedures and punishments were clearly defined for a caught runaway slave. The ex-slaves who earned their freedom were also attacked through government policies that strived to find a reason to take the

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

Instead, they were classed as fugitives. In this way, slaves were left with no way to become free. Their only option was to work on the plantations for life.

In an effort to keep slavery alive with the Atlantic slave trade, the south threatened disunion immediately should the slave trade in the Atlantic be banned. The reason that the Atlantic slave trade would have been banished was the high amount of native-born slaves in New England and Virginia were demanding it so. The threats of disunion swayed many of the delegates’ minds, one in particular, Foner notes, is Governor Morris, one of Pennsylvania’s delegates. Morris said he was being forced to decide between offending the southern states and doing injustice to “human nature.” For the sake of unity amongst the nation, he chose the latter. The two laws demonstrated here shows that while as a nation we were expanding and making as accessible a nation as humanly possible, the slaves were still held back into slavery, yet making up for part of the population with the three fifths clause and having a more official return to their owners