In the case of Dred Scott, he told the court that Sanford and himself were citizens of two different states. However, the court makes it quite clear that Dred Scott is not a citizen of Missouri; and because he is not a citizen he does not have the right to sue in a federal court. Throughout the case the court gives several reasons why Dred Scott is not considered a citizen of Missouri. They use excerpts from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence to prove that because Dred Scott is of the African race he can never become a citizen, free or not. After the court officially decided that Dred Scott is not a citizen and does not have the right to sue; because of this, the court does not have the jurisdiction to make a decision on…
When the Dred Scott case came before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney was one of the five justices from states where slavery was legal. These five justices were the majority on the court, and believed that although the Missouri Compromise existed, a slave owner had the right to take his slaves anywhere he wished without fear that someone would remove his property from him. It was their feeling that regardless of the fact that Dred had lived in so called “free states,” he was still his owner’s property.…
Today was the day of the Dred Scott case. I was very nervous for what would happen. I’m from Illinois which is known as a free state. And I traveled to Missouri to get the insider about the Dred Scott case. I believed slavery was morally wrong and want it to end more than anything. So I’m completely on Dred Scott’s side. When I arrived at the St. Louis’ Old Courthouse I became more nervous. There was a very low chance that Dred Scott would win this case considering it was packed with strangers who believed slavery was the right thing to do. Once the court began Dred Scott made the first statement stating, “I have spent nearly my whole life as a slave. My time of traveling to different locations sure does give me the right to emancipate. I…
2. Dred Scott was a Missouri slave. Sold to Army surgeon John Emerson in Saint Louis around 1833, Scott was taken to Illinois, a free State, and on to the free Wisconsin Territory before returning to Missouri. When Emerson died in 1843, Scott sued Emerson's widow for his freedom in the Missouri supreme court, claiming that his residence in the “free soil” of Illinois made him a free man. After defeat in State courts, Scott brought suit in a local federal court. Eleven years after Scott's initial suit, the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court.…
Born into slavery in 1795 Dred Scott just seemed like every other black slave in the South, but down the road he would be one of the biggest influences in the civil rights movement and the progression of slavery. Dred Scott tried to earn his freedom in a very unusual ways for the black slaves back then, he fought like the white men would; in court. This case would later influence the South succeeding into the confederacy, and most certainly making a big point into slavery coming to an end.…
The Supreme Court first heard the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford in 1857. Dred Scott was a slave who lived in Missouri with his owner. His owner took him to Illinois and Minnesota, two states that prohibited slavery. After the owner died, Scott proclaimed himself a free man and his family free due to the fact that he had resided on “free soil” for several years and that his four children had also been born on “free soil”. He sued the man’s widow and won and lost his case in several courts over an 11 year period. At this point in history, the Missouri Compromise had been in effect for about 40 years, but was never officially ruled on by the Supreme Court. Many Southerners were hoping that the Compromise be ruled unconstitutional due to the…
In 1857, Dred Scott lost his case proving that he should be free because he had been held as a slave while living in a free state. The Court ruled that his petition couldn’t be seen because he did not own property. But it went further, to state that even though he had been taken by his 'owner' into a free state, he was still a slave because slaves were to be considered property of their owners. This decision furthered the cause of abolitionists as they increased their efforts to fight against slavery.…
The conclusion of Scott v. Sandford was considered the worst judgment Chief Justice Roger broke Taney ever composed. He disregarded constitutional points of reference, misshaped history, forced an inflexible instead of an adaptive development on the constitution, overlooked particular awards of power in the constitution, and tormented implications out of other, more-cloud provisions. His rationale on the citizenship issue was maybe the most convoluted. He conceded that African Americans could be citizens of a particular state and that they may even have the capacity to vote, as they truth be told did in some states. In any case, he contended that state citizenship had nothing to do with national citizenship and that African Americans couldn't…
The southerners felt that the North was unfairly judging the South and their way. During the trials the National Guard had to place people outside of the courthouse to defend it from a mob that was trying to lynch the nine black boys because they were very angry. Next, old feelings and anger from the Civil War had been rekindled. It was good for the North because the races of blacks and whites united together and marched working together to free the Scottsboro boys from the trials. One way that they got together was having meetings in churches, parks, and schools trying to free the Scottsboro boys. Duke Ellington and Langston Hughes are also very good examples in the north because Duke performed many concerts and Langston made plays and poems in the defense of the boys. North had a famous marching slogan which was “ Black and white unite and fight.” Clearly, the Scottsboro trials made the North and South people heighten…
Emerson, Scott began his fight for his family’s freedom and filed a lawsuit against Mrs. Emerson in 1846. The grounds for suit against Mrs. Emerson were false imprisonment since they lived in the free states of Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where slavery was banned. There were many other cases similar to this, in the state of Missouri, in which the slaves won their suit under the same circumstances, and were granted their freedom. In 1852, after a very long legal battle, the Scott’s lost their case. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Emerson transferred the Scotts’ ownership to her brother, John Sanford. This transfer was important in getting the Dred Scott case to the Supreme Court because Sanford lived in New York. And the constitution states that suits between citizens of different states must be tried in the federal…
In the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford which was decided on in 1857, it was decided by the supreme court that African americans- free and unfree were not considered citizens of America and were not allowed to sue in civil court. The court also ruled as noted by Alex McBride that “That Congress lacked power to ban slavery in U.S territory and that the rights of slave owners were protected by the fifth amendment because slaves were to be considered as property and not citizens.…
Scott lost the case, Taney the court’s major opinion writer noted that because Scott was black, he was only counted as 2/3 of a person, and therefore had no right to sue. He referenced back to the Framers of the constitution, “Had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, he was bought and sold as an ordinary article of merchandise.”…
They depended greatly on the North for their industries and factories, because they had very few. They also opposed federal spending on internal improvements and they wanted no tariffs. Even despite having a somewhat weak economy, the South wanted to gain their independence to become their own country, and to have their own way of life, which included slavery as legal. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the South thought that they would have no voice in the government, considering that Abraham Lincoln was against slavery. In hopes of being their own country, the South had no intention of fighting a war. However, before the war started, the South was unwilling to compromise. They thought that slavery should be allowed in all of the territories. They disagreed to the Missouri Compromise and to parts of the Compromise of 1850. Many felt that these compromises were unfair and biased. The South felt that their way of life and views on slavery were right and just. They turned to what they thought was their only choice: seceding from the Union. This enrage the North, which was one of the main causes of the Civil War.…
* When the Mexican War ended, new territories were to be admitted as new states…
Another cause of the American Civil War was the fight for whether the government would value federal rights over states’ rights. Economic and Social differences caused the Northern States to view certain subjects differently than the Southern States. The South was also afraid that they would be outnumbered in Congressional representation and not properly exhibited. However, the Constitution allows each slave to be counted as three-fifths of a person for population count, which in turn gave the South the advantage when it came to representation. In 1857, the Dred Scott Decision declared the “freed” Negroes did not have citizenship. Northerners were very shaken by this and the South attempted to force them to return freed or runaway slaves to their owners. Not too long after, Abraham Lincoln, an anti-slavery Republican, was elected into presidency. He was convinced that slavery would never be allowed to be adopted in new territories and will ultimately be abolished. His victory ensured the South that they had drawn the short end of the stick. This sparked a fire in the South and they fell to their only other alternative. South Carolina published its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They knew Abraham Lincoln was anti-slavery and believed he would give preferentiality to northern interests. His election resulted in the secession of eleven southern…