Dred Scott v. Sandford is one of the darkest cases in the history of the Supreme Court.
After years of slavery, parts of the United States were beginning to head in a direction away from slavery. The establishment of the Missouri Compromise and gaining some territories as slave states and others as free states, was proof of this shift from slavery, especially in the north
(Pearson Education Inc. 2005). The Scott v. Sandford decision, in which an African American man was denied both his freedom and his citizenship to the United States, did not link up with this new way of thinking. The divided opinion amongst the Justices illustrated the divided nation
(Scott v. Sandford 1875).
When the Dred Scott case came to the Supreme Court, the nation was in a time of great divide, with pro and antislavery groups arguing about whether new states should enter the nation as "slave" states, where slavery was legal, or "free" states, where slavery was illegal. The nation was on the verge of violent conflict over the issue and Congress was too divided to do anything
(Pearson Education Inc. 2005). This argument was heightened by the establishment of the
Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had some territories enter the nation as slave states and others as free states (Independence Hall Association 2013). The Supreme Court did something out of character. In the midst of all this uncertainty, they took Scott v. Sandford and decided to make a ruling on this controversial issue (Pearson Education
Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.
When congress was siding more with free states, Southern Leader, John C. Calhoun, created the “doctrine of nullification” which states that “a state has the constitutional right to nullify a national law” (73). This action almost lead to war when South Carolina invoked this doctrine and Andrew Jackson took military action to keep the union in tact. Although both sides were able to reach a compromise, a civil war will take place 30 years from then. Another spike in tensions was the Dred Scott decision (1857). A slave named Dred Scott argued that since his master died in a free state, and the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a federal law, made slavery in a free state illegal, he was a free man.
Scott had filed another suit in court in 1854 against John Sanford. The case was favored to John Sanford but Scott turned to the U.S. Supreme court. On March 6, 1857, after 11 years of the Dred Scott v. Sanford, seven out of nine judges from the Supreme Court decided that slaves were not citizens of the United States. Which also led to the decision that they had no rights to sue
Dred Scott Vs SandFord The case, Dred Scott vs Sandford, (1857) better known as the Dred Scott case was a crucial decision that affected America and it’s black population. Free blacks in America weren’t able to sue the court. The concept of popular sovereignty was also questioned, and blacks with ancestors were imported to America was slave could no longer become citizens. The Case ruled that slaves in free countries are still slaves.
The aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act began the violence known as Bleeding Kansas, which was the result of countless conflicts of pro-slaver and anti-slavery settlers. To make matters worse three years later, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated, “… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time….”11
The court also argued that Scott's as a citizen of a free state did not make him a US citizen. He could not clarify as an American citizen because he was black. The decision in Dred Scott v Sandford raised tension between the North and
One case in particular, McCleskey v. Kemp, was decided in The Supreme Court. Mccleskey v. Kemp was wrongly decided by the Georgia courts and then also by The Supreme Court, in which they decided that it did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. McCleskey v. Kemp was one of the few cases to reach the high level of impact that this
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.
The Missouri Compromise Legally separated the the Northern states and the Southern States in 1820. Sectionalism had divided them due to economically differences, they could not decide as a country on how to deal with freedom and slavery, instead they drew a line down the damn country
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.
Ferguson upheld the separate but equal clause. According to the judges the state was following the constitution. Plessy's grievance was rejected stating that this Louisiana state law was not in violation of the constitution because it was separate and equal. This was similar to other cases that upheld segregation such as Roberts v. City of Boston. The separate but equal doctrine still had power for many years after this and this was a precedent that was followed especially in the south.
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.
Throughout 1776 to 1852 the ever-changing United States was in the process of developing increasingly deeper and stronger attitudes toward the abolishment of slavery. In no other years, but those between 1776 to pre-Civil War, had the United States been as nearly determined to eradicate slavery. There were numerous reasons behind the need to put an end to slavery, some derived from the ideals of the Revolutionary War, the Second Great Awakening, Antebellum Reform Period, and Manifest Destiny. The Revolutionary War took place in order for Americans to gain independence from the British, and it not only fought for freedom, but also equality—one of the leading justifications for abolition. Moreover, the first Europeans came to America for religious
In 1857 the court case of Dread Scott v. Stanford and in 1896 the case Plessy v. Ferguson were introduced into the Supreme Court. They showed people of color were not considered to be anything other than property; the whole majority had no regard for the feelings of another person. The notion of slavery was just coming to light in the United States. As time grew on, the slaves and former slaves were rightly becoming increasingly outraged. Through evaluating language of exclusion throughout both Dread Scott v. Stanford and Plessy v. Ferguson concurrently, anyone can recognize the effects of dehumanization negatively impacting members of the black community.
The people from Africa were generally part of early American history; however, Africans had experience slavery under better conditions compared to the conditions imposed by other civilized society. From the Egyptian Empire to the Empire of Songhai, slavery was practice for the betterment of their society, however, foreigners invaded these regions and took their slave, their ports and impose these people to a life of servitude in the Caribbean islands and in the English’s colonies. Furthermore, the African American slaves were an active agent of society in the earliest period of American history; they have brought new religious practices to their community; for instance, they constructed networks of communities; they had fought in war alongside