...SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DRED SCOTT V. STANDFORD CASE “Could a black person be a citizen and therefore sue in federal court? Did the residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory?” (488, Foner) Where the three questions that the Justices addressed when looking at the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857. The Dred Scott v Sanford was the case in which African- American slave, Dred Scott, fought to buy his freedom from Sandford, the wife of his former owner who had passed away. The arguments that led to the decision of the case that would soon make history were both very complex. Dred Scott felt as though he was a free slave due to the fact that before the death of his master Scott accompanied him from the slave state of Missouri, to the free state of Illinois, as well as the free territory of Wisconsin before returning back to Missouri. Therefore making his argument that once an individual enters...
Words: 603 - Pages: 3
...The Dred Scott Decision (1857) Jordan Stuart History 121- Early America to the Civil War Professor Hamilton November 11, 2013 Dred Scott, who was born into slavery in Virginia, moved with his owner to St. Louis, Missouri. After Scott’s original owner had died the ownership was sold to John Emerson. Throughout many years Dred Scott moved with John Emerson to many free states. Once Emerson died, the ownership of Dred Scott was passed to Irene Sanford Emerson, John Emerson’s wife. At this point Scott attempted to buy his freedom but Irene refused, thus creating an uprising of controversial court cases. Dred Scott claimed he had become free while living in free states and that once free he could not be reenslaved. Dred Scott fought for his freedom in court until his case made it to the Supreme Court. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 ruled that African-Americans, free or enslaved, could never be citizens of the United States and held no rights under the Constitution. This decision proved to have a dramatic effect on American politics. The ruling of Chief Justice Taney was the most important decision ever issued on slavery. The Dred Scott decision was controversial, raising many questions regarding African Americans as citizens, whether or not the congress had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory, and the equality of all men under the Declaration of Independence. The question brought up in court was whether a negro whose ancestors were imported into the United...
Words: 646 - Pages: 3
...Thought Paper Writing Assignment on: Life in the South Many colonists came to America because of a desire to prosper and to start a new life. The majority of the settlers were males under the age of twenty. They didn’t realize how harsh it was going to be in the South. I am sure they did not expect to die like so many of them did. The life that they hoped for was not the life that they received. The Southern colonies were an ideal place for agriculture. The long, warm, and moist climate was perfect for growing cash crops such as tobacco, cotton, rice, and indigo. Its rivers were useful for transportation. The hot weather made life in the south harsh and a death expectancy that was shorter than New England’s. There were four classes of settlers; they were the plantation owners, the middle class farmers, the indentured servants, and the slaves. Almost half of the settlers were indentured servants or slaves. How life was in the Southern colonies depended upon which class of people you came from. In a plantation, the wealthy planters’ children were educated at home by teachers that their parents hired; they had easy lives. They learned reading, writing, dancing, and music. Boys learned to ride horses and hunt, and spent lots of time outdoors. The older boys were taught how to run the plantation. The indentured servants were people who came to the colonies on contract. Their hopes were to come to America for a better opportunity of a good life. They would have their fare...
Words: 2175 - Pages: 9
...retain nearly all other governing functions, including public education and safety. The issue of slavery was a growing threat to the Union's survival. With fear of the Northern states to abolish slavery, southern leaders devised constitutional argument to fit their political desires. South Carolina argued the constitution had created" a government of states not a government of individuals.". This led to the Calhoun "doctrine of nullification," when declared that any state had the constitutional right to nullify a national law. The supreme court's infamous Dred Scott decision (1857), written by Chief Justice Roger Taney a statis rights advocate, told the conflict. Dred Scott, a slave that had lived in the North for four years, applied for his freedom when his master had died, citing a federal law the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that made slavery, illegal in a free state or territory. The Supreme Court ruled against Scott, claiming that people of Africian descent were barred from citizenship and thereby could not sue for their freedom in federal courts. The court also invalidated the Missouri Comprimise. The court ruled that slaves were property, not people, and as such could be taken into any state or territory. Accordingly slavery in any part of the United States was justified according to Congreee. Taney Court's decision provoked outrage in the North and led to a sectional split in the nation's majority party, the Democratic....
Words: 306 - Pages: 2
...Dred Scott Vs. Stanford Dred Scott was a 62-year-old slave who sued the Supreme Court in 1857 for his freedom after spending time on territory where slavery was prohibited. The Supreme Court’s pro-slavery decision pleased the Southern Democrats and angered the Northern Republicans. Eventually leading to more abolitionists and Republican fighting to gain control of Congress and the courts. The result of their well led campaign was the election of Abraham Lincoln and brought the country to the verge of the Civil War. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri from 1833 to 1843. He then was taken to the free territory of Louisiana, lived there for two years and then moved back to Missouri. When in Missouri, Dred Scott went to the Missouri Court and...
Words: 293 - Pages: 2
...Dred Scott was an enslaved African American who was a prominent figure in one of the most well-known court decisions in our history. He was born in Virginia around 1800, owned by Peter Blow and Elizabeth Taylor. Scott worked for the Blows, but later became Dr. John Emerson's body servant when Elizabeth and Peter died in 1831. Scott moved to Fort Armstrong, Illinois, which was the first time Scott had lived in “free” land. In 1836, Dred Scott met Harriet Robinson, a slave owned by a local justice, who soon became his wife. In 1843, Dr. Emerson died, and Dred Scott started to seek freedom. On April 6th, 1846, Dred Scott and Harriet attempted to file suit against Mrs. Emerson to gain freedom. Friends of Scott had encouraged him to sue for freedom, since he had once lived in free territory. Like the Missouri Courts had supported in the past, “once free, always free.” After going to trial on June 30, 1847, the case was dismissed because Scott couldn’t prove that he and his wife were owned by Dr. Emerson. However, in 1850, the case was retried, and the jury recalled the Scotts free! Sadly, Mrs. Emerson wouldn’t accept the court’s decision, Scott became a slave, again. Instead of giving up, Scott received assistance from new lawyers and other supporters, and his case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. On March 6, 1857 Scott learned the decision of his case. Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice, revealed, or made previously unknown known, that Dred Scott and his family’s freedom was inevitable...
Words: 399 - Pages: 2
...Slavery Dred Scott 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.¨ He is important because he lived in a state where slavery was prohibited, but wasn't entitled to his freedom because of his race. This led to African Americans becoming enraged with the U.S. government for not having civil rights. (Sam McAnulty) The ad that is shown is talking about an auction that is going to take place selling a young girl slave, tools, and dried goods. In my opinion, I believe that it is sad that someone is being sold at the same time as food is being sold. They are not treating the slaves like...
Words: 1233 - Pages: 5
...The Dred Scott Case Scott v. Sandford was Dred Scott’s second attempt at suing for his freedom. Not only did this case spark conflicts between the North and South, but it also was a cause for the Civil War. Even today, a court case has not received as much controversy as Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott…Case). The controversial case of Dred Scott can be examined through Scott’s motive for suing, the harsh opinion of the Chief Justice, and the outcome and influence of the case. Scott was traveling with his master, John Emmerson, to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory as part of Emmerson’s job and after the death of Emmerson in 1843, Scott decided to sue Emmerson’s wife for his freedom in the state court. He stated that living in free soil made him a free man, but this court case did not go in his favor (Dred Scott v. Sandford). After this court case, Emmerson’s wife sold him to her brother-in-law, John...
Words: 586 - Pages: 3
...Douglas believed that the Declaration of Independence did not refer to the black race when they said that “all men are created equal”. He states that “they referred to the white race alone, and not to the African”. His interpretation of it was that it was directed to only those who were born in Great Britain, as well as resided there. Lincoln’s interpretation of the Declaration, however, was that it would offer more than just the freedom to British man. He even states that “I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere”, however it does not and Lincoln felt that the Declaration was of no use now if it referred to only those who were British. In his response to the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln mentions that all men are to be created equal and are entitled to the natural rights. Although he believed that the decision was unfair, he did still support colonization of free blacks because he believed that he could at least stop slavery from spreading into the free states. His initial aim was to preserve the union, without ending slavery where he seems to contradict his own beliefs. However, the purpose was that he felt that those who were free, deserved all the rights of a white man, however, those still in slavery, had to live under the conditions they were born to because they were still considered chattel. Based on this document, it definitely seems as if Abraham Lincoln could be considered an abolitionist...
Words: 358 - Pages: 2
...In the state of Virginia in 1795, Dred Scott was born into slavery. He was owned by Mr. Peter Blow and Mrs. Elizabeth Blow of Southampton, Virginia. One year prior to Alabama territory being admitted to the Union, the Blow Family and their property relocated to the Huntsville area in hopes of tending to successful farming. In 1830, As a result of ineffective farming in Alabama, Mr. Blow retired from farming and the family moved to St. Louis, Missouri. One year later, Mr. Peter, the owner of Dred Scott, passed away. Dred Scott was then sold in 1832 to a US Army Surgeon Dr. John Emerson. Thus, Dred Scott’s enslavement and extensive military travel under Dr. Emerson began when he moved to Fort Armstrong of Rock Island, Illinois. As a military...
Words: 380 - Pages: 2
...Justin Fortuny 9/29/16 Mrs. Perez Period 8 Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott v. Sandford was in 1856-1857. This was when the Supreme Court stated that African Americans were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. During this time, the Court also ruled that Congress lacked the power to ban slavery on U.S. territories. After, the Court declared that the rights of slave owners were protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were seen as property. This means that slaves were seen as objects and something you can buy with money. This problem began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson bought Dred Scott and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory near the Missouri Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years. He hired himself out for work during the long stretches when Emerson was away. During 1840, Scott, his wife, and their children moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 184.This left the Scott family to his wife (Eliza Irene Sanford). In 1846, after years of laboring, the Scotts wanted to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he...
Words: 805 - Pages: 4
...Brief description During the 1800’s slavery was a major issue in the U.S. One of the most controversial case was Dred Scott v. Stanford (1857). Scott was a born a slave and was owned to his master Peter. When Scott’s owner died, Peter appointed Dr. John Emerson as Scott’s new slave owner. Emerson was the new slave owner of Scott and traveled to Illinois and Missouri where slavery was outlawed by the Missouri Compromise. Scott wanted his freedom, but his slave owner did not agree with him so the debate ended up in the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction In the beginning, the Supreme Court Justices held that the case had no jurisdiction because Scott was not a considered a citizen. The court was limited to cases between citizens of the states therefore...
Words: 1023 - Pages: 5
...C.Scott v. Sanford(1857) D. This case dealt with the slave known as Dred Scott who escaped from Missouri to Illinois to become a free man and later went back to Missouri to sue for his freedom from his owner by claiming that because he had resided in a free territory he should be free. His owner argued that because he was of only african descent that he could not be a citizen under the constitution. E. Is Dred Scott considered a free man because he escaped to Illinois and live there for a while or is he still a slave as he was a slave post Missouri Compromise? F.The court ruled that Dred Scott was still a slave because only congress could grant citizenship and since he started out as property simply just moving to free states could not make...
Words: 1263 - Pages: 6
...military. 2. What is the difference between categorical grants and block grants? Categorical Grants are federal grants for the states or local government for a specific project. Block Grants are federal grants that allow the state and local government to disperse funds to a specific department or division. 3. Of the Supreme Court cases mentioned in chapter three, which TWO do you think had the most impact on the federal system of government? Why? The Dred Scott decision (1857) made a huge impact on the federal government and paved the way to the abolishment of slavery in the Union. The decision created hysteria in the North and spilt the most powerful political party the Democrats in half. Democrats nominated two different candidates to become president which was spilt in half and made way for a Republican president Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln called for a gradual abolishment of slavery which in turn led Southern states to leave the Union and Civil War began to preserve the Union and end slavery. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) this led to the “separate but equal law” Mr. Plessy was accused of violating a Louisiana Law that stated blacks and white couldn’t ride on the same railroad car. In the Plessy decision the court allowed southern states segregation of races, so white children went to different schools from black children, blacks used different water fountains, different movie theaters. This went on for many years until the Civil rights; Brown vs. Board of Education...
Words: 705 - Pages: 3
...Lincoln's Speech Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech had a specific purpose for it. He was directing it mainly at the congressmen and the President, and it's purpose was to show them how America was hurting itself by fighting endlessley over slavery. His speech was one of the most influential speeches in the history of the US. Lincoln was talking to the congressmen and the President because they were the people who could do something about all of these issues. He pointed out many of the wrongdoings of the government, and how the Dred Scott decision was a major turning point away from the advancement of the US. By treating slaves as property, and not as people, America was slowly destroying itself from the inside out, and that would eventually lead to violence and destruction. He tried to get people to listen to him not by merely making a political speech, but also trying to show them that what was going on wasn't right. He was saying that people need to value the country as a whole over their own specific ideas (whether it be about slavery or another issue.) He talked about "points" gained in favor of slavery in what seemed to be a well timed game on the part of the government. It systematically tried to permit slavery all over the country, and take away any rights that may or may have not been already granted to slaves. In conclusion, Lincoln was trying to appeal to the inner emotions of each delegate...
Words: 317 - Pages: 2
