The Supreme Court Case Of Dred Scott V. Missouri By Irene Emerson

Roger Brooke Taney made history in the 1857 Dred Scott Case by ruling that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. This controversial historical figure died on October 12, 1864, in Washington, D.C. One of Robert’s most famous quotes was "What Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state. "What Robert is saying is that a master of a slave can do whatever he/she wants with that slave. By the time Roger B Taney became Chief Justice, Taney had become a staunch supporter of slavery, even though he had manumitted eleven slaves he inherited as a young man and made anti-slavery statements when serving as defense

When his father is arrested for murder, he was held in jail for 3 years waiting for trial. Furthermore, 9 white police officers testified against him. Although the jury had 8 blacks and 4 whites (page 50), Hobbs mentioned this might have been something the jury could not disregard. As we can see in critical race theory, the law continually oppressed

Scott and his wife file for separate petitions with the court as their petitions are dismissed and their lawyer files for a new trial. Irene then hands over the Scott’s to the St. Louis County Sheriff to be their sole custody as slaves, while the case that Scott had previously filed with the court was being resolved. The court case had a ruling and the Scotts’ were freed from slavery. Mrs. Emerson was not pleased with the court’s ruling and she and her brother appealed the ruling with the Missouri Supreme court and a new trial was started and named – Dred Scott v. Irene Emerson. The Missouri supreme Court decides to reverse their own ruling and Scott and his family are no longer free but slaves again living in a free

He talks about unjust lynching and fair speech for both sides. He said, “Take the evidence, sift it out and find the truths and untruths and render your verdict... you are not trying whether or not the defendant is white or black--you are not trying that

The Supreme Court was summoned back into this case by Scott, but they didn’t support his claim or even give a reasonable statement regarding this decision. All Supreme Court Justices voted in favor for Sanford, and stated that “no black, free or slave, could claim U.S. citizenship, and therefore blacks were unable to petition the court for their freedom,” meaning Dred Scott lost again. After this trial, “the case grew in scope and significance as slavery became the single most explosive issue in American

Sanford. In this case Dred Scott a slave who had lived with his master in a free-state the returned to a slave-state felt he should be given his freedom. In this decision the Supreme Court decided that no slave or free black man could be granted U.S citizenship. This meant that no black man had the right to petition the court for their freedom. Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded “Congress possessed no authority to pass a law depriving persons of their slave property in the territories.

Dred Scott, slave of army surgeon John Emerson, had travelled with Emerson from Missouri to several states including Minnesota. The Missouri Compromise declared Minnesota a free state. After returning to Missouri, Scot sued for his freedom based on the grounds that he had previously lived in a free state. When the case reached the supreme court, the court ruled that living in a free state for a period of time did not make Scott a free man, that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional because Congress did not have the right to prohibit slavery in any territory as that violated the 5th amendment, and finally that as a black man, Scott was excluded from citizenship and could not bring suit Abraham Lincoln was Republican candidate in the

“We all should know that diversity makes for a rich tapestry, and we must understand that all the threads of the tapestry are equal in value no matter what their color.”, says Maya Angelou putting in the spotlight the judgment of people based on how they look. The cases of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Loving vs. Virginia all attempt to prove this point during the civil rights movement. These cases also make apparent the segregation of blacks in the court system. In 1864, the question of having freedom was brought into the courtroom by Dred and Harriet Scott in St. Louis City. Dred and Harriet Scott had been held captive in free territory and then brought back to a slave state.

He gained support from local abolitionists and filed for another suit in federal court in 1854, against John Sanford. John Sanford was Emerson’s brother and the executer of his estate. The case was decided in the favor of Sanford, so Dred Scott turned to the U.S. Supreme Court for another chance to fight his case. The Supreme Court ended up taking his case and on March 6, 1857, the Supreme Court’s decision of Scott vs. Sanford was issued. The jury decision was 7-2 and Judge Roger B. Taney denied Scott’s request to become a free slave.

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.

John F. Kennedy once said that "it ought to to be possible... for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color." The Civil Rights Movement, which began when the infamous Rosa Parks was harassed by the police when she refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white passenger, was just one campaign that fought to bring Kennedy 's views to life. The Supreme Court also had a hand in the equalization of the races in America, but it was not always positive. The Supreme Court has influenced the views of civil rights advocates throughout the years: Dred Scott vs. Sanford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, and Loving vs. Virginia. To start off, Dred Scott and his wife lived in Wisconsin with their owner, Dr. John Emerson.

Scott showed everyone who opposed slavery there was hope. By fighting for his freedom, and standing up for what was right, Mr. Scott demonstrated hope. He showed other enslaved individuals that they had the power to fight for their freedom just as he did. By giving people hope, it created a strong foundation for future generations to stand up for themselves and fight for what they deserve. “In an 1850 retrial, the couple were granted their freedom, only to have it taken away by the Missouri Supreme Court after two years.”

Darrow creates a lasting mental impression and invokes fear through his use of graphic imagery and word repetition. The transition from guilt to fear drills deeper into their emotions . During the Scopes Trial, where a man was condemned for teaching evolution, Darrow defends science over religion, as he states that: If today you can take...evolution and make it a crime to teach it in the public school, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools, and the next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. Soon you may set Catholic against Protestant and Protestant against Protestant… (“Attorney for the Damned”187).

Dred Scott was sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived for a time in a "free" territory. The Court ruled against him, saying that under the Constitution, he was his master 's property. The people involved with this court case are the Supreme Court,Dred Scott, and Chief Justice Roger B. The final judgment for this case ended up in Dred Scott 's favor.

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.