More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the circumstances surrounding the Dred Scott Case and what impact did the Dred Scott have
American history slavery
American history slavery
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Dred Scott was a former slave who gained popularity for unsuccessfully suing for his freedom and that of his family with the case officially known as Dred Scott v. Sanford Case. The issue of this case was to determine whether Scott was considered a citizen under the United State law. Around 1800’s, Scott moved with his owner, Emerson from Virginia to Alabama, and then to St. Louis, Missouri. Upon the death of his master, Scott was bought by Dr. John Emerson and was taken to the free state of Illinois, because Illinois was a free state. Dred Scott expected him and his family to be free but his owner thought otherwise. This case was brought to the Supreme Court which ruled that since Scott was born a slave, he will always be a slave because nobody …show more content…
of African descent is considered a citizen of the United States. The case brought about friction and growing tension amongst the Northerners and the Southerners, the Republicans and Democrats, including anti-slavery and pro-slavery. The Dred Scott decision did not please the democrats and the southerners, mainly because they will lose their free-labor and property.
So they were determined to do something about it. The confederate states felt that the republicans in the north were interfering with their personal properties, and the republicans felt that African Americans should be free and nobody should be enslaved and use for free-labor. This tension caused a divide in the country, increasingly leading the way to civil war. The Dred Scott case had a huge impact in the United States today because it has made way for the thirteenth, fourteenth amendments which re-defined citizenship in the states, and abolished slavery, and leading the way for more equalities down the road. This shows how a single case can impact the society and change everything for single set of people The Dred Scott case also shows how unstable and incomplete the legal system had become in America because of the dreadful judgment by the Supreme Court. It demonstrates that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and the federal government had limited powers in establishing slavery. It gave politicians from both the Northern states and the southern states an opportunity to use the issue for campaign and oppose each other’s in the elections. It revealed that the federal government did not have power over the southern/slave states and could only enforce and make laws on mostly northern
issues. Finally, this case might not have directly caused The Civil War, but it was a catalyst that erupted, giving the Republicans and Democrats an opportunity to let their feelings out. In addition, it led to the issue of slavery and abolition to be brought, also giving the anti-slavery stage to fight against slavery with the help of Abraham Lincoln. This case may have led to the dissolve in power of the southern democrats, leading to the abolition of slavery and the beginning of civil war.
In the case of Drew Peterson, the court docket is important for the accused because it explains the why the different filings and rulings were made pertaining to the admissibility of evidence in this case and if the accused should in fact be accused of the murder of his wife Kathleen at all.
The reason why Dred Scott decided to pursue his freedom is unknown, but there are a couple theories. For example, it is believed that “most likely, Scott decided to bring his case to court after years of [talks] with other slaves that had done the same.” (Herda, 30) This shows that, Scott was not an ignorant, uninformed man and had reason to believe he could obtain freedom for himself and his family. This also shows that he took a long look at the issue before making the decision to sue for his freedom. In addition, he may have also been convinced by “several talks with his old friends, the Blows, who were sympathetic to his troubles.” (Herda, 30) This shows that his previous owners, turned friends, the Blows, may have been a major influence; being Scott’s staunch supporters throughout his life. This also shows that the Blows encouragement, on top of other slave’s actions, may have been what finally convinced Scott to pursue the suit for his freedom. In conclusion, several factors convinced Scott to sue for his freedom including the opinion of his previous owners, the Blows. 188
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...
The South was fighting against a government that they thought was treating them unfairly. They believed the Federal Government was overtaxing them, with tariffs and property taxes making their lifestyles even more expensive than they already had been. The North was fighting the Civil War for two reasons, first to keep the Nation unified, and second to abolish slavery. Abraham Lincoln, the commander and chief of the Union or Northern forces, along with many other Northerners, believed that slavery was not only completely wrong, but it was a great humiliation to America. Once we can see that with these differences a conflict would surely occur, but not many had predicted that a full-blown war would breakout.
Dred Scott v. Stanford was the most fundamental case in American history dealing with the rights of African Americans. This case tested the Missouri Compromise and challenged the issues of slavery and national citizenship. Dred Scott was a slave owned by Dr. John Emerson, who constantly traveled in and out of free and slave states with Scott. Originally Emerson had Scott in Missouri, a slave state, and then moved over to Illinois, a free state, and lastly to Wisconsin territory, also free. While in the Wisconsin territory, Scott married and had two daughters, which was unique due to the fact that slaves in the south were prohibited from being married legally, further validating Scott's implicit freedom. Eventually Emerson moves Scott and his
In the years paving the way to the Civil War, both north and south were disagreeable with one another, creating the three “triggering” reasons for the war: the fanaticism on the slavery issue, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the separation of the Democratic Party. North being against the bondage of individuals and the South being for it, there was no real way to evade the clash. For the south slavery was a form of obtaining a living, without subjugation the economy might drop majorly if not disappear. In the North there were significant ethical issues with the issue of subjugation. Amazing measures to keep and dispose of subjugation were taken and there was never a genuine adjusted center for bargain. Despite the fact that there were a lot of seemingly insignificant issues, the fundamental thing that divided these two states was bondage and the flexibilities for it or against. With these significant extremes, for example, John Brown and Uncle Tom's Cabin, the south felt disdain towards the danger the Northerners were holding against their alleged flexibilities. The more hatred the South advanced, the more combative they were to anything the Northerners did. Northerners were irritated and it parted Democrats over the issue of bondage and made another Republican gathering, which included: Whigs, Free Soilers, Know Nothings and previous Democrats and brought about a split of segments and abbreviated the street to common war. Southerners loathed the insubordination of the north and started to address how they could stay with the Union.
...ecause they feared that Slavery would soon be completely abolished. These tensions eventually led to the civil war where the North won and slavery was ended although there were still slave like laws in place after.
The Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.
Dred Scott was born as a slave in Virginia. As a young man he was taken to Missouri, where he was later sold to Dr. John Emerson. A military surgeon, Dr. John Emerson moved Scott a US Army Post in the free state of Illinois. Several years later Dr. Emerson moved once again, but this time to the Wisconsin Territory. As part of the massive Louisiana Purchase the Wisconsin Territory under the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery. While in the Wisconsin Territory and also later in St. Louis the Emersons started to rent the Scotts out as servants. Under several state and federal laws this was an illegal act in direct violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Northwest Ordinance, and the Wisconsin Enabling Act. Scott bounced around from several military posts including one in Louisiana before ending up again in St. Louis, Missouri. After the death of Dr. Emerson, ownership of the Scotts reverted to his wife. Through out 1846 Scott tried several times to by the freedom for him and his family. After several failed attempts he resorted to the legal r...
and sold. His new master then moved to Illinois (a free state) for a while but soon moved back to Missouri. Upon his master's death, Scott claimed that since he had resided in a free state, he was consequentially a free man. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, there was great conflict throughout the United States. The North and South had come to a crossroads at which there was no turning back. The Secession Crisis is what ultimately led to the Civil War. The North and the South disagreed on slavery and what states would be free states. The South despised Lincoln's election and rose up in revolt by forming the Confederate States of America.
Lastly, Dred Scott Case with the United States Supreme court fought freedom for the slaves in the American Legal System. In 1857, the court 's decision denied his plea and determined that no Negro,a term used to portray anybody that was African blood, was or could ever be a citizen. This decision also the reason for the Missouri Compromise, which set restrictions on slavery in certain U.S territories. The Northerners were outraged and the Dred Scott case became a reason to elect president Abraham Lincoln in 1860
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 ...
The causes of most wars are often very complex, but in the America civil war it came down to two major issues, slavery and the protection of the Union. In the North, they were growing richer all the time as industry developed fast. The workers were mostly immigrants with low wages. The South didn’t have these resources, and the slaves were essential for them. The Northern politicians insisted that the Slavery should be abolished and that this was an evil system that should be stamped out. Only the rich wool farmers and other wealthy southerners had their own slaves, but most of them thought each state should decide its own politics rather than the federal government in Washington. When the war started most southerners fought for their States’ right and not just the slavery question.