...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
...Super Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1854 The defendant, having been arrested and imprisoned under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, was denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered returned to the State of Georgia into the custody of his owner, James Potter. He brings a petition of error before this Court and prays for issue of the writ, that he may have the lawfulness of his imprisonment tried upon his discharge. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Chief Justice. TRUEPENNY, C.J. The defendant is a colored person living in Boston, Massachusetts. Upon complaint of John B. Bacon of Savannah, Georgia, acting as agent and attorney of James Potter of Chatham, Georgia, the defendant was arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by George T. Curtis, Commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Massachusetts District, charging the defendant with being a fugitive from labor, and with having escaped from Georgia whilst owing service or labor to said Potter. U.S. Marshal Charles Deven and U.S. Deputy Marshal Frederick D. Byrnes, acting under direction of the warrant, arrested and imprisoned the defendant on the 4th of April, 1851. The defendant claims via petition, both signed and sworn to by him, that he was free, and not a slave. The defendant prayed for a writ of habeas corpus so that he may be discharged from his imprisonment and brought before a court to have his case heard. Counsel for the defendant asked the court to consider...
Words: 2888 - Pages: 12
...Throughout United States history, the United States Supreme Court has decided major cases related to the civil liberties of African Americans. In 1857, the Supreme Court case Dred Scott v. Sanford raised the questions, “Is a slave a citizen?”, “Can a slave sue in court?”, “Is a slave free if transported to a free territory?”. The Supreme Court ruled no to all of these questions. In 1896, the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Ferguson ruled “separate but equal” is constitutional. These decisions have had a significant impact on the nation. The years leading up to the Dred Scott v. Sanford case consisted of tensions over the issue of slavery and slave rights. There are many compromises and documents established that helped to prevent the extension of slavery. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was one of the first of many documents that banned slavery in the territories. It was established to allow for the administering of new territories and forbade the expansion of slavery into...
Words: 924 - Pages: 4
...U.S Supreme Court issued a verdict regarding the Dread Scott case. This verdict stated that slaves were not citizen of the United States and could not sue in federal courts. Dread Scott was a negro slave born in Virginia. Peter Blow, his owner settled down in St.Louis, Missouri where he sold Scott to Dr. John Emerson: a U.S. army surgeon. In 1836 Emerson moved with Scott to Fort Snelling located in the free territory of Wisconsin. Due to the Missouri Compromise, slavery was prohibited in this territory. During that time, Scott married Harriet Robinson. In 1837, Emerson was ordered to leave and go to Jefferson Barracks Military Post by the army. He went, leaving those two behind, but still available for hire. By doing that, Emerson was...
Words: 911 - Pages: 4
...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
...were three court classes that had a major significance in impacting the status of both free and insullted Blacks in the United States. In the Schooner Amistad case Africans slaves onboard the Schooner La Amistad rebelled and killed the captain of the ship. After killing their captain they then demanded going back to Africa, but instead they ended up near Long Island, New York. The result of the case was that the transporting was going against many laws and treaties. The court ruling was that these men were free and that they were just fighting for their freedom. The Schooner Amistad case played a major significance because this gave Africans this gave the right to take any measure possible to secure their freedom. Dred Scoot v. Sanford was another court case that had a major significance on the United Stated....
Words: 480 - Pages: 2
...Dr. John Emerson took his slave, Dred Scott, from Missouri to Illinois and Minnesota where they resided from 1834 to 1838. Illinois and Minnesota are located in the territory north of 36° 30' and identified as free states under the Missouri Compromise. Scott returned to Missouri in 1838 and years later, Dr. Emerson died. Scott brought suit against Emerson’s widow in the Missouri courts, claiming his residency in free territory changed his status to free. The lower court decided in favor of Scott, but in 1852, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision. Scott’s ownership was transferred to John Sanford, the brother of Mrs. Emerson’s new husband. The family filed a suit on Scott’s behalf against Sanford in the U.S. Circuit Court in Missouri, where Scott appealed to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. The ruling in the U.S. Circuit Court in Missouri was in favor of Sanford. Scott brought suit to the Supreme Court to decide on his status of citizenship and the rights he could receive from the Constitution. Issue Is a slave who was taken into free territory able to become a United States citizen and receive rights from the Constitution? Rule...
Words: 550 - Pages: 3
...authority over slaves in 1834. They argued that all slaves instantly be set free (Doc B). This is how hard anti-slavery groups fought for the rights of African Americans. But they were not the only ones fighting, Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner with a cane after Charles gave a speech about the rights of African Americans. This attack was a sign from the southerners saying we will fight back (Doc C). So both northerners and southerners were up for a fight to get their way about slavery, but even though there were people ready to fight; many people wanted America to stick together and have both sides compromise and work it out. States coming into the Union came...
Words: 1362 - Pages: 6
...case that is usually known as the Dred Scott Decision was a ruling by the Supreme Court of America that African people imported into the country and detained as slaves were not protected by the U.S Constitution and could never be American citizens. Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom from his master in a Missouri court in the year 1846. As part of his arguments, Dred Scott claimed that he resided in Illinois which was a free state and part of the Louisiana Territory. Therefore, he claimed that he was a free man because of his residence in a free territory in which slavery was prohibited by the 1820 Missouri Compromise (“Dred Scott v. Sanford” par, 1). However, Dred Scott’s suit for freedom in the local federal court in Missouri was unsuccessful. Eleven years later after his initial suit in the Missouri court, Scott brought a new suit in the United States’ Supreme Court. This was after the federal court ordered the jury to depend on Missouri law for the conclusion of the case regarding Scott’s freedom. Additionally, Scott decided to appeal to the United States’ Supreme Court following the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court to consider him as a slave. In his defense, Scott’s master maintained that the American Constitution did not allow people of African descent and descendant of slaves to be considered as the country’s citizens. Similar to the initial suit, the Supreme Court of America ruled in favor of Scott’s master because of the fact that people of African...
Words: 2148 - Pages: 9
...states supreme court passed on a decision that would forever change their reputation and would help ignite what started the civil war.In Dred Scott v. Sandford the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property. The arguing started in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a specialist with theU.S. Armed force, purchased Dred Scott, a slave, and inevitably moved Scott to demean in Wisconsin.Slavery was illegal in as per the Missouri Agreement (where everybody meets in the center). Scott lived there for the following four years, employing himself out for work amid the long extends when Emerson was away.In 1840, Scott, his new spouse, and their young children moved to Louisiana and after that to...
Words: 868 - Pages: 4
...Background of the Case In 1857, Missouri slave Dred Scott's case came into this highly charged environment and before the U.S. Supreme Court. Popular sovereignty allowing states to decide the slavery issue and affirming slave owners' right to take their slaves into Western territories were key issues for the court. Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota were free states when Scott lived there with his owner. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, Scott claimed he was free since he had lived...
Words: 886 - Pages: 4
...United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled in United States v. Peters that the power of the Federal Government is greater than the power of any individual state. In the case United States v. Peters, a Connecticut privateer named Gideon Olmstead was captured by the British Navy during the Revolutionary War and forced to work on the Active. However, Olmstead and his shipmates overcame the British crew, but then they were captured by the Convention, an armed brig that belonged to the state of Pennsylvania, and the Le Gerard. The captains of the ships claimed any profit from the sale of the captured ship and its cargo as their own. This was a problem for Olmstead and his shipmates...
Words: 640 - Pages: 3
...Today, the United States Supreme Court is regularly lambasted for many of the decisions it makes, and the phrase “worst decision in history” is regularly thrown around. The polarized political climate in the United States combined with a twenty four hour media cycle helps push this perspective, but in reality the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are not nearly as good or bad as the public wants to believe. Of course, there are exceptions, especially historical ones. The landmark 1857 case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford is an outstanding example of a Supreme Court decision that was both as horrible as it seems, as well as impactful for a large amount of people in the United States, directly. This paper will analyze the Dred Scott decision,...
Words: 2011 - Pages: 9
...The United States Supreme court ruled the Constitution’s Bill of Rights restricted only the powers of the federal and subsequently not those of the states in the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833. The petitioner, John Barron, was seeking a ruling against the city of Baltimore. Barron claimed the city had violated his Fifth Amendment rights. “The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation”. Barron alleged that his wharf was too shallow for most boats to dock because of a road construction project. The city had dumped sand and other solid materials into the wharf impeding the water depth. After the first law suit, the state court found the city had deprived Barron of his rights to private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages. This compensation was to be paid by the city. Subsequently, an appellate court reversed the award, Barron appealed to the USSC, to which the case was reviewed in 1833. The opinion of the court was written by Chief Justen John Marshall. The decision upheld that the Bill of Rights delegated no power to the states and was only an application of the Federal Government. At that time, the Constitution was, seemingly, created only to apply to the Federal Government and not for individual states. Some states had drafted their own constitutions; however, Maryland had no law which mirrored the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it...
Words: 1296 - Pages: 6
...In 1831, a U.S army surgeon purchased a slave, Dred Scott, in the slave state of Missouri. Eventually they moved to Illinois in 1833, which is in the Wisconsin Territory, and according to the Missouri Compromise, Missouri was a slave state and slavery was prohibited north of the 36’30N line so in turn, Illinois was a free state. Scott lived there for four years employing himself with side work while Emerson was away. By 1840, Scott had a wife and a family of two children while Emerson married Eliza Irene Sanford. They moved to Louisiana and then St. Louis before Emerson died is 1843 and left Scott and his family in the hands of Eliza Sanford. The Scotts wanted to become free and they saved until 1846, when Dred Scott sought to buy their freedom but Sanford denied....
Words: 447 - Pages: 2
