As the early nineteenth century unfolded hostility to slavery surfaced on the national scene. The United States began to split because of views of the people became concreate causing the bitter disputes between the North and South to be more drastic due to economic issues of slavery and morals. The Constitution contributed in the separation that was occurring. For example the Compromise of 1850, was drafted by Henry Clay in an attempt to gloss over the confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North regarding the territory with slavery. Another example of a Supreme Court decision that is known as the Dred Scott Decision of 1857 declared that African Americans had no rights of citizenship hence slaves who escaped to free states were not free but still the property of their owners and would need to be returned. The decision of the United States to determine that once a person was a slave they could never become a citizen. This case instilled fear to anti-slavery groups that slavery would spread and it infuriated anti-slavery leaders causing the new Republican Party.
Then Bay relied on the testimony of Samuel Russell, who told the court that he had hired the Scotts from Mrs. Emerson, paying Mrs. Emerson’s father, Alexander Sanford, money for their use. The case of Dred Scott was about a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before he was brought back to the slave state of Missouri, Scott had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes that he would be granted his freedom. In the ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States, therefore Scott could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. The Opinion of the Federal Government stated that congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal
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
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?
Scott was an African American slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom, because he believed that he should be free based on the territory he was living in. Congress examined this case and came to the conclusion that since Scott was not a citizen of the United States, he did not have the authority to sue the federal court. This case caused great tension within the nation because congress’ decision not only made it seem like they were accepting slavery but it contradicted original compromises such as the Missouri Compromise. The ruling of the Missouri compromise being unconstitutional was an extreme upset to the northerners, because this made way for a greater opportunity of slavery within the nation. The growing tensions between the north and south were increasing with every decision made involving the issue of slavery.
“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
In 1857, a Missouri slave named Dred Scott sued his owners for his freedom. His argument was that, since his former owners took him to live with them in Free Territories of Wisconsin, he was therefore free. The Dred Scott Decision gave abolition a black eye. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Dred Scott remained a slave because blacks were not citizens and had no citizenship rights, including the right to file a suit in court. The Court also ruled that Congress had the right to ban slavery anywhere. This nullified the Missouri Compromise, even though the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 had repealed it. The Dred Scott Decision angered the North and gave the slave states of the South validation. The abolitionists feared that the Decision would allow for slavery to expand into additional territories and, once again, showed that slavery was a national issue, not just a problem for the South.
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.
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.
Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal. The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott 's temporary
many acts and amendments resulted from one mans wish to be free. Dred Scott was a slave to the Emerson
Dred Scott was a slave whose owner stole him from Missouri and took him to many free areas in different territories. Scott went to court and demanded that he be deemed a free man because he was living in a free state (Illinois). The court ruled against Scott, because he was black and it was said that he could never be a
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
One of the final cause of the Civil was involved a slave named Dred Scott. Dred Scott was an enslaved person owned by John Emerson. Emerson took Dred Scott from Missouri to Illinois, a free state. They then moved back to Missouri, which was a slave state under the Missouri Compromise. In 1857 Dred Scott sued the state of Missouri on the claim that by living in a free state, he was free and had earned his freedom. Scott won that case, but the ruling was later overturn by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the compromises including the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional and that African Americans were not United State citizens and could not be a citizen. Slaves were considered property and had no rights.