Dred Scott was a slave and social activist who served several masters before he had sued for his own freedom. He made history in America by launching a legal battle to gain his freedom. His case worked its way to the Supreme Court prior to the American Civil War. Dred Scott had a significant impact on American life during the Civil War Era because he fought for what he believed was right, and did what he could to abolish slavery(“DS BIO”). Dred Scott was born sometime around the turn of the century, 1795, in Southampton County, Virginia. A legend has is that his name was not Dred but was Sam, but when his brother died, he adopted his name instead. His parents were also slaves, but it was unknown whether the Blow family owned them at his birth …show more content…
On April 6,1846, Dred and Harriet Scott had each filed separate petitions in the Circuit Court of St.Louis so they could gain their freedom from Irene Emerson. Francis Murdock happened to be their lawyer, he was unable to read or write, He relied on advice from the Blow family, which he had renewed contact since he had returned to St.Louis. Harriet Scott had knew John Anderson, which was the minister of the Second African Baptist Church, that had helped all of the other slaves file their petitions for their freedom in the Missouri Courts. It was definitely very uncommon for the slaves to sue for freedom if they were living in free states for that period of time. He had lived in a free territory for the past decade, so it definitely had seemed as though his case would have a positive outcome. With all the financial and all the legal help of the Blow brothers, Henry and Taylor, and all their friends, Dred and Harriet’s cases were both dismissed on technicality. Their lawyer’s had quickly moved for a new trial. Irene Emerson quickly made several arrangements for the Scott’s to be put under the charge of the St.Louis County Sheriff. Almost Ten years, from March 17,1848, to March 18,1857, He and his family would be in the sheriffs custody. The sheriff was in total control for hiring out the Scotts and for collecting and for keeping all of …show more content…
With all the help from the new lawyers, the Blow family, and all of the other supporters, Dred Scott’s case had moved through the Missouri Courts to the highest court in the nation. So at this point in time, John Sanford, which was living in New York at the time, had claimed ownership of the Scotts. The Scott’s new lawyer, which was Roswell Field, had appealed the decision and also added Scott’s daughters to the case. Eventually though, field had arranged for the case to go before the U.S. Supreme Court. So what he did was, he had convinced Montgomery Blair to argue for the Scotts in what has became the famous Dred Scott v. Sanford case. March 6, 1857, He had finally received a decision about his suit for his, and his family’s freedom, Chief Justice Roger Taney had ruled that Scott, because of his color, was not a citizen of the United States. He had no right to bring that kind of suit in a federal court. He was never free while living in free states, so therefore; Congress had no permission to prohibit slavery. So the end result was, the Scott was family was all to remain
Another similar case was the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott, being a black man during the 1820's, was yet again considered inferior to bring his case to the court. From a reader's point of view, Dred Scott's case was very legit. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Scott a free man. All of the blacks going through the 35'36 altitude/latitude line were said to be free men. When Dred Scott entered Illinois, he entered thinking he was a free man, until his owner assaulted him upon the return. Dred Scott did his best to bring not one but three assault cases to the court against his "owner", John F. A. Sanford; however, the court dismissed him as inferior to take any participation or even demand a fair trial. The court also called upon the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional because of deprivation of personal property, which in this case was Dred Scott - a property of John Sanford. Eventually the sons of Sanford purchased Scott and his wife, and set them free. Scott died just a year after that.
Taney, ruled that “The case lacked jurisdiction to take Scott’s case, because Scott had been a slave (McBride 1).” There was a 7-2 decision for Sandford from the justices of the nine member chamber (US history 1).
At the same time in history, the Dred Scott case was taking place. This case was to determine what should be deemed appropriate for the rights of slaves. This case in particular infuriated Lincoln more than anything else did in his career. The ruling in this case was a legal way to insure that anyone that was enslaved was not only unable to become freed, but also that they were unable to be acknowledges as citizens in the United States at
Scott Joplin, commonly known as the "King of Ragtime" music, was born on November 24, 1868, in Bowie County, Texas near Linden. Joplin came from a large musical family. His father, Giles Joplin was a musician who had fiddled dance music while serving as a slave at his master's parties. His mother, Florence Givens Joplin, born free and out of slavery, sang and played the banjo, and four of his brothers and sisters either sang or played strings.
In 1846, African slave Dred Scott sued for his freedom on the grounds that he resided in the free states of Illinois and the Wisconsin/Minnesota territory to serve his owner. In 1854, Scott appealed his case to the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the District court’s decision declaring him still a slave. In 1856, the case began, however the freedom of Dred Scott was not the only issue the court addressed, they also had to decide can blacks be citizens, the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, and can Congress prohibit slavery in federal territories. A year later the Supreme Court handed down its decision, “they dismissed the case of due to lack of
188 It is also possible that his original lawyer Samuel Mansfield Bay saw opportunities for a large reward due to his services to Scott, and initiated litigation. For example, some feel that Bay’s “object was to pave the way for a suit against the Emerson estate for the twelve years’ wages to which Scott would be entitled,” (Herda, 29) should he win the case. This shows that, money could have been the driving force behind this case. This also shows that Scott may have been persuaded by another person’s reasons for pursuing the case. In addition, if this was true, Scott “had been illegally held as a slave since 1834.”
The Dred Scott decision involved two slaves, Dred Scott and his wife, who originated from one of the recognized slave states, Missouri, but they were relocated to settle in Wisconsin, a state where slavery was prohibited. In 1846, Scott filed a lawsuit and “sued for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in a free state and a free territory had made him free.” In 1854, Scott’s “case ultimately went to the Supreme Court.” By landing in the Supreme Court, the justices ruled seven to two against the Dred Scott and his wife for multiple reasons. One main reason that the court specified was that whether African Americans are enslaved or not, they were never recognized as citizens of the United States. Therefore, the justices believed that the case should not have been heard or discussed in the Supreme Court to begin with. The second reason was that regardless of any African American being transferred to a free state, does not necessarily change their social status. Thirdly, the Supreme Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a compromise that outlawed slavery north of the 36˚30’ latitude line, is unconstitutional because the Congress declared that they had “no power to ban slavery from any territory.” The decision was critical due to increasing the North population’s unease, and their concern that the South will begin to transport slaves to freed states, which will
“Dred Scott was an enslaved African American”, (Appleby 446-447). He was born into slavery in 1799. His parents were slaves of Peter Blow, who lived in Virginia. Since his parents were slaves, Dred was a slave since the time of his birth. In 1830, the Blow family moved to St. Louis, Missouri and brought Dred with them. A couple years later he was sold to Dr. John Emerson, an army doctor who at the time was stationed in St. Louis. Dr John Emerson, along with Dred, was transferred in 1834 to Rock Island, Illinois (a Free State) and then in 1836 to the military outpost in the Upper Louisiana Territory. John was stationed at each military base for a couple of years. While in the Upper Louisiana Territory, Dred met Harriet Robison who was owned by Major Taliaferro. John bought Harri...
Dred Scott vs. Sandford was a very influential case during the mid-1800s. The case took place in 1857; however, the events leading up to it began in 1833. Dr. John Emerson had bo...
In Conclusion, the decision handed down by The United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sanford. That African American slaves "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it." This was a grave mistake made by the Supreme Court and could only add fuel to the fire of the issue of slavery.
questions arise: 1st.[sic] Was [Scott], together with his family, free in Missouri by reason of his stay in the territory of the United States hereinbefore mentioned? And 2d[sic], If they were not, is Scott himself free by reason of his removal to Rock Island, in the state of Illinois...?" Both of these questions led to an even greater and more central question: "Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and priveledges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?" (i.e. does Scott, having been a slave, have the constitutional right to sue?)
He is mainly known for his role in change of Civil Rights. Martin was a civil rights activist, during the 1950’s and 1960’s. He had protested for all the rights of people. His ambition and dream, was that America, would become a colorblind society, where having a different ethnicity, would not impact on their rights. He has inspired millions of people, till this day. In Source B, Martin Luther King had laid out a radical strategy, to change the idea of racial discrimination in America. Martin Luther King had developed Source B, based on the 10 Commandments, these were very similar, to the real 10 Commandments. Martin Luther King had lived through the Beatitudes, he was a man of God, and had faith in God and wished peace upon the world. Martin Luther King was a peacemaker. Dr. King had spoken about ending the Vietnam War in particular. This refers to Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God”. He had lived out this Beatitude, because he created peace between the African American People and the White Americans. Martin Luther King wanted to see peace amongst African Americans and White Americans, He wanted all racism to end, and for all people to be equal. He will always be known for his speech “I have a Dream”. Martin Luther King had lived out the Beatitude, of Matthew 5:6 “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst for righteousness
Dred Scott v. Sandford was a supreme court case in which Dred Scott, a slave, tried to sue for his freedom. Scott believed that because he had lived in a state where slavery was illegal he should be allowed freedom. The Supreme Court ruled against Scott saying that because he was from African ancestry he did not have U.S. citizenship and therefore could not bring the issue to court. The Supreme Court basically said that slaves were property.
Dred Scott was a slave. His master was an army surgeon who was based in Missouri. In the early 1830's and 1840's his master and him traveled to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory. It was in 1846 that Scott sued his master's widow for freedom. His argument was that the state of ...
Michael Jackson was born on August 29, 1958 in Gary, Indiana. He was born into an African American working class family. His mom and dad were Katherine and Joseph Jackson. Joseph put aside his music to provide for the family. He knew his sons had talents so he molded them into a singing group in the early 1960’s.