and this is time line that i mae. but i wrote in sentences
After Mr. Emerson died, Scott tried to buy freedom about 300 dollars from Mrs. Emerson; however, she denied it.
In 1846, Dred Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for his freedom because almost 9 years he lived in free slave state.
However, in 1847, Scott lost the first trial at the Missouri Supreme Court. Chief Justice stated that a person who is an African whether slaves or not, is not a US citizen. Also, the slaves had no right to claim for freedom.
In 1850, the jury in a second trial decided let the Scott to be free based on 9 years life in anti slave states.
In 1852, the Mrs. Emerson claimed that she didn’t want to lose her valuable property and appealed the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Supreme Court returned the Scott as a slave.
In 1853 to 1854, Scott files suit in the US Federal Court in St. Louis. This time the defendant was a Sanford who is a brother of Mrs. Emerson and has responsibility for John Emerson’s estate. However, Scott’s lawyers could only file a suit in the federal judicial system.
In 1856 to 1857, the Scott lost again with same reasons ‘Slave.’
That's great!
Do you think you will keep going on past the actual Supreme Court date?
Also, does anyone have to source that mentions what Taney said in the ruling of the Dred Scott case?
And what article or amendment it is that talks about property, and how white men can own slaves?
Posted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:03 am Post subject: major Players
So I only did the three I thought were the most important. Hope that's okay.
Dred Scott was a slave from Missouri when he decided to sue for his freedom. His previous owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to live in two other states, Illinois and Wisconsin which both prohibited Slavery. Scott met and married his wife, Harriet Robinson in Wisconsin, and her ownership was transferred over to Emerson. Three years after Emerson died, and Scott and his wife were now the property Mrs. Emerson. He tried to run away several times but with no success. When he offered to buy his freedom for both himself and his wife, Mrs. Emerson refused, and Scott sued for his freedom. His argument was that after spending such long amounts of time in the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin, he deserved freedom as well. When his case was turned down by Missouri courts, he managed to get his case to the Supreme Court. By the end of the trial Scott was not free, and soon after he was bought once more and set free two months later. Scott died shortly afterwards.
John Emerson was one of the owners of Dred Scott and brought him into Illinois and Wisconsin, both states that prohibited slavery. Emerson was a U.S. Army surgeon, and was being constantly transferred around the country. It is because he insisted on bringing Scott along with him that he began to question if he should still be a slave. Emerson's wife was the owner of Scott before the Supreme Court, but she remarried just in time and gave both Scott and his trial to her brother John Sanford.
Roger B. Taney was a Maryland slave owner and the Chief justice in the Supreme Court that ruled against the freedom of Dred Scott. Taney is well known for his views on the power of states, mostly slave states. His ruling on the Dred Scott case was that not only was Scott still a slave, but that any law, such as the Missouri compromise, that stopped the spread of slavery put in place by Congress were unconstitutional and were to be voided. He also argued that slaves were property, and that no state boundaries could interfere with a man's right to own his slaves. Taney also pushed that Scott had no right whatsoever bringing his case to court, and even more so the Supreme Court. This argument was dangerous because it meant that slavery could possibly become legal in all the sates.
It was kind of hard for me to come up with a lot of informations about effects of the court decision that weren't political issues but this is what I have
The Supreme Court's decision to deny Dred Scott of freedom, angered the abolitionists in the North. The outrage and uproar about the decision helped the antislavery cause and contributed to the Republican victory of Abraham Lincoln in 1860.
The decision led to violent and verbal fights between citizens who were in favor of it and citizens who were not. The press also made the case very public either with proslavery remarks or antislavery remarks and defense of the Court.
Many scholars and other people consider the decision to not grant Dred Scott freedom to be the worst rendered by the Supreme Court because it caused so much national calamity, disarray, and chaos. However others think it was helpful because it rose awareness for the overall freedom of all slaves.
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and overturned the Dred Scott decision. Unfortunately Dred Scott died too soon to benefit from those changes.
Eli Dalven
USO – RH
5/10/10
Not only did the verdict of Dred Scott v. Sanford deprive the Scott family of the freedom they deserved, it reaffirmed the inferiority of African-Americans in American society by stripping them of all rights and dignity. The Supreme Court established a precedent that Blacks were merely property, and therefore should not deserve constitutional rights. They were dealt a harsh blow by the government that denied them citizenship and essentially put them back at square one, as expendable, exploitable property. In reference to the Declaration of Independence which includes the phrase, “all men are created equal,” Chief Justice Roger B. Taney reasoned that “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration…” Additionally, Taney ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the Federal Government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories. These laws would not be overturned until Lincoln’s Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Dred Scott verdict escalated sectional tensions of Antebellum America, and strengthened the Republican Party.
Although the Supreme Court ruled against Dred Scott, two Justices dissented against all of the court’s decisions. Justices Curtis and McLean argued that there was no basis in the US Constitution that prevented Blacks from being citizens; in fact, African-Americans in ten of the original States had full voting rights when the Constitution was ratified. There was public outcry from abolitionists in the North, and the confusion of the verdict resulted in the Panic of 1857, since nobody knew whether the West would have slavery or not. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, which further enflamed the issue of slavery, and led to the bloody Civil War.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
