In the years leading to the Civil War, there were many events that sparked wide spread controversy and severely divided the nation. Dred Scott an African American slave whose owner brought him from a slave state to a state that outlawed slavery where he attempted to sue for his freedom. In the year 1854, a mere 6 years before the start of the war, the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford handed down one of its most controversial rulings to date. Known as the Dred Scott Decision, the Supreme Court lead by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney issued a 7 to 2 decision, rendered that Africans whether they were free or slaves were not citizens and that they had no legality to sue in Federal court. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...er B. Taney sent shockwaves through the nation. Taney believed that this would once and for all settle the issue of slavery and whether or not they were considered humans or propriety. Politely it farther divided the north and the south and was thought by many to be a move by the court to expand slavery to territories in the west. 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.
... go ahead with the death sentence made the North realize that he was a hero whereas the South believed that Brown was a terrorist and committed an act of treachery and horror. This specific invasion also assisted on choosing Abraham Lincoln for president, who advanced to achieve the vision of John Brown with the Emancipation Proclamation.
“For the Slave South to deter its most potentially destructive slave resistance, potential fugitives had to dread coercion outside as well as inside their masters’ estate” and the act provided that coercion. The free blacks, at the very least inspiring images to slaves, encouraged potential runaways through their lifestyles and knowledge. Without these slaves’ attempts to gain freedom, the act would not have been necessary. The northern states would not have made laws allowing citizens not to participate in slave catching, and the southern states would not have been nervous about northern state compliance with the return of their
Being born into slavery meant that Dred Scott had been exchanged from owners to owners (Knappman 16-17). His first owner, the Blows, died, and before their death, they sold Scott to Dr. Emerson. Dr. Emerson soon gave Scott away to his wife’s brother, Sanford (Knappman 16-17). Scott tried to buy his freedom away from Dr. Emerson’s wife but she just wouldn’t accept (Dred Scott Decision 1). Since Scott moved from place to place as a slave, he was able to go to Illinois, which was a free state (Richie 40). Because of the Constitution, Scott used his rights to sue Sanford claiming that he was a free man (Richie 40). With this in mind, it lead to arguments about both parties, the prosecuted and the defendant.
The ultimate ruling is often referred to as the Dred Scott Decision. The Supreme Court had ruled that although people of African American descent may be free, they are not American citizens. They also ruled that slavery could not be banned in United States territories by Congress. Lastly, because slaves were considered possessions, slave-owners were protected under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. This de...
The American Civil War was caused by an explosion of conflictions, provoked by regional and sectional differences and an unfortunate sequence of political events. As explained earlier, the central theme of almost all of the events that brought about the Civil War was related to slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott Case, and the Election of 1860 were three events that played very instrumental roles in causing the Civil War, however each could have been handled differently by the parties involved. The approaches of the parties could have been more subtle, using compromises to settle disputes, in order to avoid a war.
The majority of speculations regarding the causes of the American Civil War are in some relation to slavery. While slavery was a factor in the disagreements that led to the Civil War, it was not the solitary or primary cause. There were three other, larger causes that contributed more directly to the beginning of the secession of the southern states and, eventually, the start of the war. Those three causes included economic and social divergence amongst the North and South, state versus national rights, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Dred Scott case. Each of these causes involved slavery in some way, but were not exclusively based upon slavery.
Before the Civil War, the black man was thought to be inferior to the white man. He was susceptible to diseases that did not affect the white man. Diseases like drapetomania “that induces the negro to run away from service” reduced the black man to a biped animal, incapable of thinking for himself. His decisions were based solely on animalistic instincts and influences such as disease and misleading temptations. In the Dred Scott case of 1857, blacks were decided to not be citizens of the United States of America. Consequently, they were not entitled to any more protection than a cow and could not sue for their freedom. They were not able to dispute the issue. They had no identity outside of their master, they were entirely tied in every legal way to that person’s decisions. Even when a man might admit that blacks are indeed human, blacks would still be looked upon as inferior. Abraham Lincoln, acclaimed liberator, declared tha...
... road that could lead only to disaster. Dred Scott might well have been the point of no return”(186). The decision to have Scott remain a slave was claimed with reasons of not being a U.S. citizen with the right to sue and for not being a freed slave to begin with. The North and South were so divided on the issue of slavery that the Dred Scott case was the match that set fire to the already established idea of an explosion of a civil war.
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 Civil War started when the confederate warships shot at the union soldiers at Fort Sumter, in South Carolina on April 12, in 1861. It ended in the spring of, 1865 because General Robert E. Lee had surrendered to General Ulysses S. Grant on April 9. But it still wasn’t over until the last battle at Palmito Ranch in Texas on May 13. But before there was a civil war there was slavery and events that would attempt to end it.
...ers mobilized in 1860 behind moderate Abraham Lincoln because he was most likely to carry the doubtful western states. In 1857, the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision ended the Congressional compromise for Popular Sovereignty in Kansas. According to the court, slavery in the territories was a property right of any settler, regardless of the majority there. Chief Justice Taney's decision said that slaves were, "...so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery in territory north of the 36°30' parallel.
Scott then filed another lawsuit “in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford’s brother, John F.A. Sanford, for Sanford’s alleged physical abuse against him” (McBride). The jury of this trial ruled that Scott could not sue in a federal court, because he was a slave under Missouri law. Next, Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1856. The Court’s decision was made in 1857. Dred Scott and John Sanford had no idea at this time that their lawsuit would have such a huge impact on United States history. The conflict that started in Missouri in 1846, and lasted until 1857, has become a very significant Supreme Court case. The only reason it is so important today is because the two men involved both strongly disagreed with each other, and were not content with the decisions given to them. There were obviously other factors playing into it, such as physical abuse, and not wanting to pay back money. Overall, the reason it went all the way to the Supreme Court is probably because slavery and African American rights were being questioned, and the Supreme Court wanted “to end the slavery question once and for all” ("Dred Scott v. Sandford."). This meant that many people were questioning it, including the lower courts, so the highest court had to answer the question properly and
The controversy began in 1833 when Dr. John Emerson purchased Dred Scott and moved Scott to a base in Wisconsin Territory where slavery was banned. Scott lived there for many years hiring himself out for work while Emerson was gone at war. In 1840 Scott and his family moved to Louisiana and then to St. Louis with Emerson, Emerson then passes away in 1843 leaving the Scott family to his wife Eliza Irene Sanford. Dred Scott then labored for many years and saved his money, the Scott’s sought to buy their freedom from Sanford but Eliza refused to give them freedom. Dred then sued Sanford in a state court, saying that he was legally free because he and his family lived in a territory where slavery was banned. In 1850 the state court finally declared Scott free but, with a catch. They held Scott’s wages and during the time that this was being processed Eliza remarried and left her brother John to deal
It began numerous events that led up to freeing of all slaves. Anti-slavery leader, Abraham Lincoln, in the North read about the controversial Supreme Court decision and was disgusted with the verdict and vowed to prohibit slavery in all territories of American (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). Conversely, many southern Americans agreed with the court decision and wanted to extend southern culture throughout the nation (The Dred Scott Decision-Northern Abolitionist, 1996). They wanted to use a means of Cultural Hegemony throughout the nation in order for complete control of the union.
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