The Pros And Cons Of The Dred Scott Case

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

We are so accustomed to waking up every day without a care in the world. We can basically go wherever we like, eat wherever we like, sit wherever we like, and not have to worry about another person controlling our every move (unless it’s our parents of course)! Imagine a time, not too long ago, when just because of the color of your skin, you had an “owner” and were treated as a piece of property, instead of another human being. A time where you couldn’t go into certain places, sit in certain areas, let alone use the restroom, unless it was in a designated place for your particular skin color. You weren’t labeled as people, but as black or white. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia and had to face these hardships his whole entire life. When he finally walked on to free soil where slavery was prohibited, he stayed and chose to still be with his owner. Once his owner died, he and his wife decided to sue for their freedom. Little did they know, that the rules only applied to certain people when they wanted them to.

To what extent did Dred Scott decision was examined from an incorrect view of the judicial role and viewed as morally incorrect? Due to Chief Justice Taney’s unacceptable error of not reviewing the case through law, the decision led the nation split into two and eventually caused in American Civil War. In this investigation, Chief Justice Taney, who held the majority of votes, actions and behaviors prior of the case will be evaluated for its impact upon a simple freedom case. This investigation will also focus on three questions that Justice Taney claimed after reviewing the case and how it was or was not constitutional. Research will be done in books about Dred Scott’s background and what he has done throughout his life, a reference

The Dred Scott case took place in 1857. Dred Scott sued in federal court claiming that he was a free citizen. He had been taken to a slave-free territory by his owner, who was an army doctor (history.com). Since the state was free he also declared that he too was free, so Scott sued. He said that he was a citizen of Missouri and a free man. This case became a legal nightmare. This case was basically trying to figure out if slavery should be allowed in the south or not (history.com). Scott tried to gain his freedom, but it the trial did not turn out so well.

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.

The Civil War had many things that contributed to the start of it such as slavery. Events like The Underground Railroad, Missouri Compromise, Nat Turner Rebellion, compromise of 1850, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott trial, Bleeding Kansa, John Brown Raid, Abe’s Election and the Battle of Fort Sumter. All of these events had key factors, even the smallest things add up. Whether it be an uprising or even a book might change the views or opinions that you have on slavery. What if it supported your views would you want to share with others in hope to change others thoughts or feelings? What if you were a Southerner and Abe had become President… would you fear of what might happen to your slaves? What if you were part of the Dred Scott Trial what side would you be on?

Dred Scott was an African-American who traveled to the North with his owners and when they attempted to sue his owners for slavery for it was not allowed in the free state that they went to. The case gained so much momentum that it was brought to the Supreme Court to rule upon. The court ruled in 7-2 deinging Dred Scott 's request and ruling against congress saying it was unconstitutional. The court’s rationale is that a black man no matter in the north or south “could never be considered citizens of the United States or be protected by the United States Constitution” The decision impacted the sectional crisis by outraging both Republicans and Abolitionist movements that were gaining momentum in the North. The argument about allowing slavery into new states also started radicals like John Brown to try and start a slave rebellion when he committed to raiding Harpers Ferry. The debate of allowing or getting rid of Slavery has stopped being diplomatic and started to turn violent.

The Dred Scott Case had a huge impact on the United States as it is today. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments have called it the worst Supreme Court decision ever rendered and was later overturned. The Dred Scott Decision was a key case regarding the issue of slavery; the case started as a slave seeking his rightful freedom and mushroomed into a whole lot more. 65

With tensions at an all time high and the nation at a potential breaking point, the decision in the Dred Scott Case came as a surprise to both the North and the South. The decision had drastic consequences, southern principles were validated while northern liberties were threatened. Therefore it is not surprising that The New York Herald and The Charleston Mercury had very different view points and reporting styles. The northern newspaper viewed the decision’s impact as having “tremendous consequences,” the article included how the Supreme Court’s ruling dismantled northern states’ rights, threatened their liberty and state constitutions. While the southern newspaper saw the

"Douglas basically explained in the Freeport Doctrine his belief that the people in a new territory be able to decide whether or not they would allow slavery."(What Were the Results of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates?) The Freeport Doctrine was the subject Douglas spoke about. It made people uneasy."Lincoln argued that while he wanted to end the extension of slavery into US territories"(What Were the Results of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates?) It was important, and a historical debate time. As Lincoln spoke his famous quotes a nation cannot stand as a divided nation, and everyone had rights through the Declaration Of Independence.The problem also was extension to the different territories for slavery. The Debates were not to fix slavery, but to talk about what would make it better. What laws could change it, or stopping slavery from happening in many other

In 1834, a surgeon Dr. John Emerson joined the US Army and was accompanied by his slave Dred Scott at a number of posts located in Illinois, the Wisconsin Territory, and Missouri. When Emerson died in 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom claiming that because since he had lived in territories where slavery was illegal, he was legally free. Soon the case finally went to the supreme court after being overruled by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave and Roger.B.Taney, the chief of Justice at the time, declared that under the US Constitution terms on possession of property, Dred Scott wasn’t free because since slaves were “property” and a slave being freed after going to a free state would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment.The outcome of the Dred Scott case affected the United States stance on slavery. The supreme court's

“To get congressional support for his Chicago Route in January of 1854, Douglas Proposed organizing the Nebraska Territory for settlement and letting the people living there at the time of statehood decide the statue of slavery”(Kansas Encyclopedia n.pag.). The South greatly supported this idea of popular sovereignty. Douglas felt that this was a nicer way than saying whether or not he personally supported slavery. Instead, he could just be in favor of having the people decide which seems very democratic. However, this repeals that already made Missouri Compromise which states that there cannot be any slavery above the 36’30’ line. Because, in theory, the people of Kansas and Nebraska could decide if they wanted slavery, the South greatly supported this new Act. The North, however, did

I believe that it´s the same offender in the Parkinson case and the Johnson case, which is making the offender a serial killer because he has killed 3 people and it has been over a period over 30 days. By looking at different serial killer typologies my firm belief is that this offender will fall into the lust serial killer typology. I concluded this by firstly looking if the crimes were act-focused kills or process kills, I concluded it was process kills because the offender had taken the time to abduct both Parkinson and Johnson and didn 't just kill them right away like an act-focused killer would do. With the offender being a process killer he could only be organized as well because process killers cannot be disorganized. The offender would either be a lust killer, power-control killer or a thrill killer. I concluded that the offender in this case would not be a thrill serial killer, since this kind of murderer gets off my seeing his victims suffering, which is the most important factor for this type of offender. In the Parkinson and Johnson murders there were no signs of torture on the victims bodies and therefore I do not believe that this offender would be a thrill serial killer.