Dred Scott V. Sandford Case

Taney’s opinion, on the other hand, would differ greatly from a Marshal opinion. Taney supports the dual federalism perspective, which holds that the state and national governments are equal in power, and places much emphasis on the Tenth Amendment. From Taney's opinion in Scott v. Sandford, it is evident that Taney holds an enclave view of the Tenth Amendment, meaning that there are areas of delegation specifically reserved to the states and the the federal government cannot intrude on. In the Scott v. Sandford ruling, Taney stated that Congress was out of line and had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. This court opinion invalidated the already repealed Missouri Compromise, demonstrating Taney’s support of the states overturning federal legislation that impeded on state sovereignty.

The attorneys failed to proffer any evidence in support of Solomon’s legal business enterprise, which he established with legal proceeds from the medical malpractice lawsuit. Furthermore, the attorneys never proffered any evidence on his behalf, which proved ownership, control, actual or constructive, or possession of the vehicles stopped by police. According to residents and property records, neither Johnson brother owned, occupied, possessed or control a property located at Oso. The property allegedly had $1,868,759 in cash and although such a very odd number, aside from questioning the veracity of the cash receipts, the indictment states that Mr. Solomon Johnson owned the vehicles, property, and currency.

In 1986, the U.S. supreme court ruled to uphold the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing anal and oral sex in private between consenting adults, marking a legal precedent allowing individual states to freely enforce sodomy statutes of their own. This supreme court case, Bowers v. Hardwick, began when Michael Hardwick was found by police having oral sex with another man when they entered his home. Hardwick was charged with sodomy, a felony in Georgia. A preliminary hearing was held with Hardwick, as a self-described practicing homosexual, asserting that the anti-sodomy statute placed him in imminent danger of arrest. He filed suit in Federal District Court, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.

The two parties in this case are Dred Scott and John Sanford. Scott, a former slave bought by Dr. John Emerson, argued that when him and the Emerson family moved to Illinois, which was a free state, that he became a free man and no longer could be held as a slave to the Emerson family when they moved to the slave state of Missouri. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson’s brother, argued that since he went to Missouri with Mrs. Emerson, and that it was legal in Missouri to hold slaves, that he was still considered to be Mrs. Emerson’s property. Once Dr. Emerson died, Scott and his family sued Mrs. Emerson for false imprisonment, but Mrs. Emerson won the case in a Missouri Circuit court when Scott’s lawyers were unable to prove that Emerson was holding him as a slave. Scott’s lawyers argued for a retrial and it went to the Missouri Supreme Court.

In 1846, Dred Scott sued a Missouri court for his and his family’s freedom. This was the year in which the fight for freedom for Dred Scott started. His initial suit took hold in a local St. Louis district court. He lost the first suit but won his second trial. Although he won the second trial, the decision was set aside by the Missouri State Supreme Court.

The case of Scott vs. Sandford was a major factor in the movement for abolitionist. It empowered the newly republican party, and altered the constitution for the good. Till this day, U.S. colored citizens are now treated like citizens due to the Scott vs. Sandford case. Dred Scott, a slave who was purchased by a U.S surgeon -Dr. John Emerson- who worked for the army, moved together in the Wisconsin territory which was in the northern area.

Before the events of Bleeding Kansas happened, Congress had to pass the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The second draft of the act championed by Stephen Douglas passed because it allowed popular sovereignty to decide if slavery would be permitted in the new territories. When understanding the events of Bleeding Kansas, it is best to follow the four distinct constitutions drawn up by the settlers. The first attempt at a constitution came from free-staters in Topeka. While the Topeka constitution prohibited slavery, it “clearly compromised the varied attitudes on race…” (75).

The Dred Scott Decision & History Dred Scott was a African American born in 1795 (1800) to a slave family, in Southampton County, Virginia. Dred Scott was owned by Peter Blow and his family who later moved to Alabama then to Missouri. In the year 1832 Peter passed away Scott was then bought by an army surgeon Dr. John Emerson. In 1836 Scott fell in love with Harriet Robinson, Dr. Emerson bought her and they soon were wed. Soon after Emerson took both slaves and his family with him to the states of Illinois and Wisconsin both of which were free states at the time. John Emerson most likely didn't see this to be an issue since he did not consider himself to live in the state, only to be stationed there.

In 1857, an African American man named Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Supreme Court. His owners brought him along on their trips across free states. Dred Scott failed in suing before his case was presented in the Supreme Court. Roger B. Taney was the fifth chief Justice of the United States when he wrote the Dred Scott vs Sandford decision. The Dred Scott vs Sandford case ended with the decision that African Americans, free and enslaved, had no rights and could not become citizens because they were property.

America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.

For the issue of first question it was ruled that Dred Scott could not sue, because he was not a citizen of Missouri, and therefore courts had no jurisdiction. Chief Taney stated that no “negro”, not even a freeman could be a citizen under the constitution. Third question that Taney claimed was the question of whether the Missouri Compromise was constitutional or not, in which Taney goes on to say that Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. (Klingaman 28) This was the second time that the Supreme Court used its power of Judicial Review to find a federal congressional act unconstitutional.

"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.

The end result of the Dred Scott decision was Chief Justice Roger Taney 's decision that Congress did not possess the jurisdiction to stop slavery from spreading into other territories, even if they were considered free. Even worse, any free Black could now be allowably forced into slavery. Being forced into slavery was also seen as being beneficial to the free Blacks. Instead of reaching a decision as President Buchanan had hoped, it had started a rapid expansion of the conflict. This rapid expansion over the issue of slavery eventually led to the Civil War.

The Dred Scott decision of 1865 consisted of several implications on the status of free blacks in the United States, as well as concept of popular sovereignty, and the future of slavery in America. however, I believe the implications of the Dred Scott decision was for the status of free blacks in the United States due to the impacts it caused and the questions it rose. First of all, Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man from Missouri who moved in with his master Peter Blow, in Illinois, a free state. Dred Scott unsuccessfully fought for his freedom by claiming that being a resident in a free state made him a free man. However, in supreme court it was ruled that because blacks can not be recognized as citizens, they did not have

In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that “all people of African ancestry could never become citizens of the United States and therefore could not sue in federal court,” according to Africans in America. Buchanan also encouraged some federal judges to agree with southern judges in the case, convinced that a proslavery decision and final ruling would end fighting in Kansas and other violence that has erupted around the issue of slavery. Because of Buchanan’s support and interference in the case, the nation became even more