Slavery has been such a controversial topic throughout our country’s history. One of the best examples of conflict stemming from this issue was the Dred Scott decision. In this paper, I would like to discuss the differing arguments between Dred Scott, an enslaved man who tried to win freedom for himself and his family, and Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, who delivered the majority opinion in the case that declared Dred Scott and all African American slaves were not citizens, therefore were not entitled to the rights of other ordinary citizens in the United States of America (Friedman 124).
I will also research and present the evidence used by both men to provide a basis for their individual case arguments. Dred Scott and his slave master, Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeon who had purchased Mr. Scott from his original owner, Mr. Peter Blow, lived in the state of Missouri before the Army ordered Dr. Emerson to serve at bases in Illinois and the Wisconsin territory. Dr. Emerson took Dred Scott along with him to the various bases which were located in a state and a territory that were free in that they did not allow slavery. Dred Scott lived in these “free” areas for some twelve years before the Army ordered Dr.
Emerson to return to their home in Missouri. Upon Emerson’s death, Scott and his family were hired out to work for other families by Emerson’s widow who withheld his money. This upset Dred Scott and lead to his attempt to sue her for his freedom. Scott argued that under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Illinois and the Wisconsin territory prohibited slavery and therefore, having once resided on free soil for twelve years should, in turn, make him free. Other than the Northwest Ordinance, the Missouri Compromise had also stated that slavery was illegal in the Wisconsin Territory(Napolitano 15-37).
The Essay on Dred Scott Case Emerson Sanford John
The Dred Scott case is one of the most significant cases in American history. Dred Scott was a former slave of a master named, Peter Blow. When Mr. Blow became financially in trouble he sold Dred Scott to Dr. John Emerson who was a physician. The military career of Dr. Emerson he traveled to many places including Illinois which at the time it was prohibited to own a slave which was stated in the ...
Other arguments Scott presented were rulings of previous, similar cases. One of which was Somersett v. Stewart. This was the judgement of the English Court of Kings in 1772 that slavery was unsupported by law. Lord Mansfield, who made the judgment, stated that “The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it’s so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support t, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged. ” An even more pertinent case to his own, Scott cited Rachel v. Walker in his argument. Rachel was an African American slave who filed her case in the St. Louis Circuit Court, as well. She fought for freedom for herself and her son, James Henry, from their master William Walker, a slave trader. Rachel was previously held illegally by an Army officer in the state of Michigan.
When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri, it was ruled that the officer forfeited his slave when he took her to a free state, much like what had happened to Dred Scott. Both of these cases proved that residency in a free territory allowed for Dred Scott’s emancipation (Napolitano 56-73).
Despite this argument, Roger B. Taney, who wrote what was regarded as the opinion of the court, still did not believe Dred Scott should be granted his freedom. He argued that slaves were not citizens, but property. The fifth amendment states “No person shall be… erived of life, liberty, property, without due process of law: nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The granting of Dred Scot’s freedom would violate this amendment by denying Emerson her property-being Dred Scott, himself. Taney maintained that Scott was still a slave when he was taken into free lands and that no master’s property rights could be limited or taken away by law. He also stated that Congress had no authority to restrict spread of slavery into federal Territory. Previous attempts to do so were unconstitutional.
The Essay on Judicial Review South State Case
John Marshall was Chief Justice in many early cases that would help get the Supreme Court up to the level of power and equal amount of say as the other branches. His ruling in the first few important cases helped bring the Courts uses of Judicial Review up to balance the powers. John Q. Adams, son of John Adams and he was the leader behind the signing of the treaty of Ghent. Daniel Webster was the ...
This included The Missouri Compromise which Dred Scott used to argue his case. This lead to the ruling of the nullification of the Missouri Compromise because it deprived property owners, or slave holders, the right to take property anywhere in the United States. Furthermore, since Dred Scott was not even a citizen of the United States, he had no right to attempt to sue in the courts at all. Justice Taney’s opinion was only one of nine opinions presented by the Supreme Court judges, however, his was the most influential (Friedman 46-50).
Therefore, in March of 1857, the horrendous decision was made by seven out of nine justices, serving on the Supreme Court at that time, that neither Dred Scott or any other slave or members of their family could be declared a citizen of the United States (“Dred Scott Decision”).
When this decision was made, Dred Scott’s fight for freedom for himself and his family was totally destroyed. Freedom for Dred Scott and the four million other slaves living in the United States, at that time, was now just a dream and it appeared would never become a reality.
I believe that Dred Scott, by far, gave a more valid argument. Not just based on my moral beliefs, but in general, his support and evidence made more sense than that of Taney’s. Dred Scott was taken into a place where slavery was prohibited. As soon as he entered that state or territory, I believe his title as “slave” disappeared. It was against the law to have a slave there, and I think Emerson should have had some sort of consequence for disobeying the law. Also, the case Rachel v. Walker dealt with almost the same circumstances in which Dred Scott was under, and the court ruled in her favor.
I think it’s unfair that years earlier a female African American slave actually won her freedom, but when Dred Scott presented a very similar case, he was denied the freedom for which he fought. I have been taught and believed that our country’s very existence was based on justice and freedom, and that basis was not indicated at all in the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. I could possibly have agreed with Justice Taney in that there was a violation of the fifth amendment if slaves were actually not people, but property. In my research, I have found absolutely no evidence supporting the fact that slaves were not and are not people.
The Research paper on Dred Scott Case
... to American History, 01-01-1991 " Dred Scott decision" Encyclopedia Brittanica Online. [http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?xref=13156&pm=1] [ Accessed 22 ... of Dred Scott. The federal court ruled in favor of Dred Scott. Supreme Court justice, Roger ... prone, Dred Scott seemed consistent with society's definition of the black slave. However, ... regarded blacks as citizens. In support of my case there was ...
Justice Taney presented no evidence that supported his opinion that slaves were not people but merely someone’s property like a house or a pig or cow. Where is the evidence supporting that, in fact, slaves are not people? How could one rule that the color of one’s skin determines citizenship? I positively believe this is a ruling with absolutely no basis. This is simply one man’s opinion and should never have been turned into a rule. You can’t support this rule with evidence. It was totally made up by Justice Taney. It never was and never could be considered a fact supported by concrete evidence.
There is no concrete support. You could say anything to get things to go in your favor, and that is exactly what Justice Taney and six other of the Supreme Court justices did in the Dred Scott decision when they declared African American slaves were merely “property” and as such had no human rights. I don’t believe you can just decide that someone is not a human being simply because their skin color is different from yours and therefore they don’t have any rights under the constitution. This ruling was made by the same people who supported “all men are created equal” in our constitution.
If you give ay credence to the Dred Scott decision, the constitution should have said, “all men of white skin are created equal”. Since this is not what the constitution said, I must reiterate, because I have discovered no evidence in my research that says otherwise, that the decision by Justice Taney that declared Dred Scott to be a slave and someone’s property with no human rights to enjoy the freedom offered to others in the United States, is totally wrong and was one of the most dismal’ disgusting and unforgivable events in the history of this great country, the United States of America.
The Term Paper on Arguments For And Against Adopting A Codified Constitution In The UK
A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government. They also regulate the relationship between and among the institutions and define the relationship between the state and the individual. There are many different types of constitutions. The constitution that is in place in the UK is an uncodified one. In other words, ...
