The purpose of the IB History of the Americas HL blog is to assist students in meeting the requirements determined by the International Baccalaureate Organization and by the State of Texas. This blog will assist students by providing information that will facilitate their completion of the course.
I greatly disagree with with the biast decision made by the the supreme court mainly due to the fact that many of them were southerners who despised free blacks. Their arguments were that of "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution".(A.S,C.1, pg.425-426) This decision also gave southerners an assurance that the "The sanctity of slave property was ringingly reaffirmed." (A.S,C.1,pg.426-427)They felt that he was just property and that property posses no rights. This decision upset people in the North and brought about the idea of "Every man will be forced to choose between disunion and the guilt of an accompliance in the crime of slavery."(A.S,C.3,pg.427-428)
The Dread Scott Decision was absolutley outrageous on how it started off. This slave in my perspective had every right to sue for the right of his freedom. But the Supremem Court did have a good contradiction when it came to, a slave is a piece of property therefor treating it like cattle, and cattle do not have rights like we humans/people do. I understand how he felt considering he was a slave on free soil, i would want to be free too because who wants to be a slave on free land? not me! but because Lincoln stated that any slave who intentionally came from a slave state and then taken to a free state alongside his master would thus still be considered a slave, slimmed down his chances to nothing of becoming a free citizen. It was absolutley ludacrious to know that many citizens considered these slaves to be like creatures. This slave went through many trials thus finally leading to one of his old masters son buying him and his wife then setting him free.
The Dred Scott decision divided the North and the South. The South was deligted with the decision but the Northerner Republicans and abolitionist were unhappy with it. They regarded it as an opinion not a decision. This defiance angered the Southerners and "they began to wonder anew how much longer they would remained joined to a section that refused to honor the Supreme Court..." (American Pageant p. 417)
The Dred Scott case, in my opinion was a bias case at the very least. A white supreme court justice, who favored slavery, should not have been able to make the choice whether or not black men could be citizens. (American Spirit)
The handing down of the Dred Scott by the Supreme Court but a huge emphasis on the recent conflict between the North and the South. It was, after all "the opening paper-gun blast of the Civil War". Dred Scott was a slave for five years before leaving his master to live on free soil. He was trying to sue for his freedom, but the Supreme Court made it more complicated then it had to be. Since he was a slave and never actually had his freedom he was still considered property and therefore could not sue in a federal court; Fifth Amendment. Stated that the citizens could not be deprived of their property. This incident boosted the moral of the South. Northern Republicans however were very much infuriated. These opinions sparked questions asking how long could the U.S. stay joined.
I believe the ruling in the case of Dred Scott was fair as property can't be taken away along with life and liberty as stated in the constitution. It was also fair seeing as how the slave or property shouldn't be able to sue its owner in supreme court, a chair can't ask for compensation as a table can't sue for being used. this also seems fair as to being the lesser of two evils, say they had not made the ruling, this would have given the south another reason to rise against the union, while making this decision would only displease the northerners and free slaves.( A.S vol 1 425-428)
When Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his master to both two free territories such as Illinois and Wisconsin, he sued for his freedom. Unfortunately, he wasnt allowed to make a case because he wasnt consider a citizen, even in the state of Missouri. What the court basically came to was everyone (white) had the right to their property and is protected under the constitution. In a way it voids the Missouri compromise.(C1) (Am. Spirit, pp. 425-426)
When the south heard of the Dred Scott Decision, they were delighted because it was reassurance that not only could they take their slaves into free territory but they can keep them there. "Not being citizens, they can claim none of the rights or privileges belonging to a citizen." (C2) (Am. Spirit, pp. 426-427)
While the south loved the Dred Scott Decision, the north hated it. They didnt like the fact that any slave owner could bring their slaves up to the north and say I bought them in the south. In the north there is no protection against slavery and it can be introduced. Personally, I would agree and side with the north. Its understandable how slave owners can bring their slaves to free territory but morally its unjust. (C3) (Am. Spirit, pp. 427)
In the Supreme Court decision of Dred Scott, the ruling stood that if a fugitive slave escaped into free territory, they're still a fugitive slave and never formally gained citizenship, nor could gain citizenship, or even sue in court due to being property in the eyes of the government. Despite this being a moral and political issue, in order to abide by what the constitution said, the vote to protect the right to property was a one in which I felt was a correct call. Even though the Supreme Court was mainly Southern which could lead to a sort of biased decision, I felt it was a good call under the law of the land. Technically since slaves are property, which is protected under the Constitution, they had to abide by it. Yes the South felt like it had won its rights and the North was down right outraged after hearing the reality of slavery through the eyes of authors such Harriet Beecher, but the call was fair and justified. The only downside to this decision would be the escalating tension caused by the potential unbalance of slave state over free states that enter the union. Another thing I felt was that slavery was rather a primitive concept as Americans were industrializing and it was a proven fact that their was more money to be made, but the South wanted to stick to their way of life they had been used to, which I felt if they would of changed, would have long term effects that out weighed the short term turmoil.(AS p.426-428)
In 1846 Dred Scott, a black slave in Illinois, sued for his freedom being that he was in free territory.Finally in 1857 the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court said that since he was an African American slave he was not a citizen but merely property, and any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which did not let you deny property rights to a property owner without due process of law.
The issue on the decision of the Dred Scott case is very scepticle. Both sides seemed to have a justifiable points on why their view was correct. On the side of the South he was technically a piece of property due to the fact that he was bought by his owner. This would justify the account in which they said since he is property, that he has no rights and therefore cannot sue in court. On the otherhand for the side of the North, the ruling of the case would go against the constitutional basis of popular sovereignty in each state. So since he was in a state where popular sovereignty decide it was free, Dred Scott not being able to be a free man was going against the govt. So with both of these legitimate arguments it is hard to see which side is more plausible in their premise.(A.S. Pgs.426-427)
The Dred Scott Decision, to me was a fair decision because he was still a slave when he moved. There arguement was that slaves were property and you couldn't get sued by your own property. Hence the reason his trial was over seen. Another reason was also because he was not a citizen of missouri. So US had no jurisdiction over the case. (TAS pg 426)
Although both sides opposing and agreeing to the Dred Scott decision had reasonable points, the whole case was actually unfair and in my belief somewhat rigged. I believe the case was unfair due to not just their argument but other factors. Possibly the most important and decisive one being that in that court case the majority of the justices were southerners. It seems quite unfair that the majority of those who decide whether a slave is free are those who support and want to have slavery. So in my opinion the whole case was rigged and Dred Scott never had a chance.(A.S. Pgs.426-427)
I feel the decision was unfair. Slaves should have a right to be free as they are people and should not be treated as property. I feel that he shouldn't technically get his freedom cause he was still in possession of his master, but it was wrong to deny his freedom nonetheless. We were all created equal, if he wants his rights, let him have his rights, he is human just like us despite his color so he should have his freedom. If the slave would earn his freedom the right way for how the times allowed him or her too, then give him the natural rights he/she deserved. (AS. 425-426)
The Dred Scott decision is incredibly controversial. On one hand, Congress was right for saying that they were not allowed to deprive people of their property without due process of the law, according to the 5th amendment, however they also passed the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery anywhere above the 36"30' parallel. And even AFTER the Missouri Compromise was done away with for the Kansas Nebraska Act, Illinois was a free state!
But then again, one of the most powerful arguments for the South was that they could take their slaves anywhere they pleased, and Congress could do nothing about it without trying them under the 5th amendment and due process of the law. (American Pageant p. 417-418)
The Supreme Court did have reason in denying Dred Scott's case because the Constitution does say that only citizens of the US have the right to sue. It also protects the right to property, which is even worse on Scott's part (Spirit p.426-27). This decision upset free states because it doesn't apply the concept of popular sovereignty. (Spirit p. 417).
The Dred Scott decision was a biast Supreme Court trial that was tried by southern affiliated justices. Dred scott sued for his freedom after his master died. He claimed that he should be freed since he lived in the free territories for a substanial amount of time. The court decided against Dred Scott, declaring that he had no right to even sue in federal court, because he was not a US citizen. (AP 417-418)
Dred Scott, a once Missouri slave had sued for his freedom where he lived (which was also on his own free soil). But Dred Scott had many problems ahead of him. One of them were the problem of taken his case into consideration because of the fact of him not being a citizen of Missouri, thus the judgement of the court wanting to cancel this particular case. (AS. pg. 425-426. C1). But the South had grew pleasure out of this particular case, judging that the colored population are not citizens of the United States. Which means they shouldn't be able to take cases to court whatsoever, and slaves not having rights compared to a regular citizen (AS. pg 426-427. C2). Thus the North arguing that the people in the South should be enforced and the Southerns were trying to get the Doctrine to be presented, which meant that any slaveholder in the south can take his slaves and himself to the north (AS. pg. 427-428. C3).
Dred Scott was a Southern slave from Missouri whom had to live nearly his entire life as what was compared to being like a caged animal. He managed to escape to the North and sued to gain his freedom from his malicious slave owner. (Spirit Pg 425-426 C1) Since slaves didn't have rights whatsoever, it became difficult to make a justifiable and possible case that could be won. (Spirit Pg 426-427 C1-C2) Dred Scott lost this case as any and all citizen had the right to their property and at the time slaves were considered property. While this trial was lost, major issues still arose within the central functions of the government. This meant that any of the northern states were able to house Southern men with slaves. This meant that slavery was now able to be spread all across the U.S. which breaks not only the 36/30 divide but even the Kansas Missouri act. (Spirit Pg 427-428 C3) The Dred Scott Decision was a simple lawsuit that wound up shining a light on a much bigger issue. The textual conflicts between legal documents.
The Dred Scott Decision was caused by Dred Scott's lawsuit for freedom. Because he was a slave, he could not do that because he was considered "property". Only citizens can do that.The south unanimously decided to continue the case. Laws contradicted each other. If a slave owner took his slave to a free state, then the slave is still a slave, but if its a free state then that means the slave can do as he pleases.(AS p.425-27)
The Dred Scott decision was undoubtedly biased. The majority of the supreme court was comprised of slave owners. They ruled,not surprisingly ,that Dred Scott was a black slave and not a citizen, and he hence could not sue in the federal government.Since a slave was property, he or she remained a slave even entering free territory.This statement was supported by the 5th amendment in the constitution, and could not deprive people of their property with out due process of law.considering this now slavery could be any where in the united states.i believe that the accusation that slaves are mere "property" and not human beings, shows perfectly how the intentions of southerners were the most immoral and inhumane, despite what is written in the constitution.(A.P,417-418)
Due to the Dred Scott Decision, male black slaves were not considered citizens, or so said the Constitution. Thus they were not able to sue for anything. To me this seems a little harsh considering that blacks were also people. Also the decision wasn't made under fair conditions. (TAP, p.417)
The entire Civil War was basically over slavery and economy. The South, which was pro slave, wanted to keep slavery because they said that it helped with the growing cotton industry. The North, which was mostly anti-slavery, wanted a more industrialized economy and saw slavery as cruel and unusual. (TAP, p.409-417) With the election of Lincoln, the south only got angrier which caused secession from the Union.(TAP, p.427) All the actions that took place were done over sheer emotion and no clear headed thinking. All that was going through these mens' minds was that they wanted to keep life the way they had it and they were willing to fight to defend what they thought was right.
Dred Scott, a black slave was taken by his master to the north side, or the free states side. Even though he was in a free state, he was still cocidered as his masters property. (C1) Dred Scott and seemed to escape ans demand his freedom concidering he was in a free state. So he went and sued. However, The supreme court told him he could not sue because he was not a citizen but a black slave. (C1) The south was overjoyed by this Dred scott decision. Slaves could be taken into the territory of the free states. (C2) The north on the other hand did not like this and was shocked. The imposed that if slavery could not be barred from the territores, then the constituional basts of popular sovereignty was in doubt. (C3) This decision was impossed by Abraham Lincoln while Stephen Douglas was for it. This was a big event in the civil war. American Spirit Book, The Dred Scott Decision Source C.
The Dred Scott decision was an unfair trail by which the victim was prosecuted by a bias Court. The bias was clearly exhibited by Chief Justice Roger Taney when he stated that blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” (Chapter 19, C2). For the time being, not granting slaves’ citizenship was expected although some other rulings were a much more bizarre. The neglecting of the Missouri Compromise which prohibits slavery above the 36° 30’ parallel was unconstitutional. In stating that property – including slaves – could be brought into any territory or state implied that slavery was unrestricted. Thus, all states were slave states (C1). The South had no right to make such ludicrous conclusions from the Dred Scott decision.
The so called Dred Scott Bombshell(Dred Scott Decision)was a case in which Scott sued for his freedom because he had lived in a slave-free territory for five years (A.P.,417). The supreme court used this opportunity to rule that slavery should be allowed in free states because of the Fifth amendment, which stopped congress from deprive the people of their property(A.P., 417). I strongly disagree with the court's decision. The Fifth amendment is part of the US constitution in which it is written that all men are created equal and that the rights of men shall be preserved. That whole concept includes the slaves not only the white men, in reality their reason for the ruling contradicts itself therefore their ruling should not be enforced.
The Dred-Scott decision is a controversial topic because a high power, the Supreme Court, clarified that black men and women are not citizens of the United States and have absolutely no rights.(AP pg. 426-427) Dred-Scott's owner may have moved into free territory and according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 there will be no slavery taking place North of 30 36 parallel,(AP pg. 426) but still Dred-Scott was classified as property and therefore he had no right to sue. There were mixed responses to this ruling, the North and South both acknowledged that slavery had no boundaries, slavery will spread North and the compromises will be voided, but the North had another comment to add to this, the supreme court was bias because it was made up of mostly slave holders.(AP pg.427) The Dred-Scott decision only created more tensions between the North and South.
I believe that the Dred Scott decision was not only utterly unfair but also a very biassed decision taken by Chief Justice Taney from the slave state of Maryland. They ruled that Scott was never a citizen and thus did not have the power to sue for his freedom even though he was technically on free soil now. The pro slavery majority in the court ruled that a slave was property and could thus be taken to any part of the country and remain a slave even though they were currently located in a free state. (AS, p.425 source, 1C) "The Missouri Compromise, banning slavery north of the 36 30', had been repealed three years earlier by the Kansas-Nebraska act." (AP, p. 418) The North saw this as a way that the South could make any slave into a slave state. They were upset because most northern states were against slavery, most were not in fact abolitionist but they were mad at the south for disregarding what they originally had said. The south even went as far as the court ruling that the Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. The north was greatly upset and cried that the ruling of the Dred Scott case was merely an opinion and thus should not reflect on what was to happen in regards to slavery in the north. The north said that the "decision was no more binding than the views of a 'southern debating society'" (AP, p. 418) This belittlement greatly angered the southerners. I believe that the court never had the right to declare that Dred Scott and other slaves were not people or citizens because the constitution protects all men life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The Dred Scott decision was one that impacted not only the spread of slavery but the moral of the United States of America. It was this decision that allowed slavery to spread with impunity for the law could not take property from its people, a fact the south rejoiced over (D:2, The American Spirit Ch 19). Furthermore it set the tone and moral that if slavery can spread so easily then even popular sovereignty was meaningless for it would not be able to contain it (D:3, The American Spirit Ch 19).
Dred Scott was an uneducated slave,who was taken by his master to the state of Minnesota, which was free territory because it layed above the Missouri Compromise of 1820.(AS, PG.425)With the influence of a certain number of abolitionist Scott sued for his freedom, the case was appealed and sent to the Supreme court.(AS PG.426)The Supreme Court ruled that a slave was incapable of suing because they were only property and were protected for their masters with the constitution.This was a decision that angered many northeners because they saw that it was unfair to Scott because he was a human being and that the constitution protected him from the right of freedom.The ruling of the court greatly influence abolitionists to keep fighting for equal rights to all people including blacks.(AS PG.427)
The Dred Scott Decision basically established that the government had no control on where slavery would be banned. Because slaves were seen as property, Congress could not take them away from their owners without due process of law (thanks to the fifth amendment). This meant that a slaveholder could take his slaves to northern Union territories (where slavery was banned by the Missouri Compromise) and still, legally, keep his slaves. This decision brought joy to many southern slaveholders because it meant they could introduce slavery to new territories, and inferiorated northern abolitionist that were trying to stop the spread of slavery.
The Dred Scott decision was named after Dred Scott who sued for his freedom. The case was appealed from the circuit court to the Supreme Court which inflamed an important question: was a slave a citizen under the Constitution? Slaves were meant as property, not as people. "A slave could be taken with impunity into the territories and perhaps also into the free states".(The American Spirit, p.426)
With the Dred Scott decision it was considered a win for the south and a loss for the north. The blacks were denied there citizenship. This case was twisted into a political issue. It could have been thrown out due to the technical grounds alone. ( American pageant pg. 417)
There was a republican defiance because of the tribunal"meaning court" that intensified by an awareness that a majority of its members were southern and by the conviction that it had debased itself. Southerners were mad by their defiance. Bitterness caused by the dred Scott decision was deepened by hard times. (American pageant pg.418)
In 1846, Dred Scott tried to sue for his right to be free because he was in free territory. (Dred Scott Decision)Eventually, the case had made its way to the Supreme Court around 1857. They had ruled that although he was on free soil, he still didnt have any say about it because he was "property" and had no rights. No matter where he was taken with his master, free states or not, he was still owned and considered property.(AS p.425-27)
The Dred Scott Decision pleased many southerners but angered many northerners. The supreme court ruled that Scott was property and therefore did not have the right to sue for freedom, even above the 36 30' that was established as free territory many years earlier. The decision ruled the Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional, and said that government could not ban slavery from any territories, regardless of the territorial legislatures choose. Abolitionists saw the decision as a biased opinion; the south was angered by the refusal to honor the supreme court and began to wonder how long they could stay in such a defiant union. This lead to more tension among the north and south, and was a big factor leading to the war. (AP pgs417-418) (AS pgs425-428)
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott Decision that if there was a fugitive slave that ran away to the free territory that they could not be citizens, it was for this reason that the Illiterate Missouri slave Dred Scott was not protected under the constitution. This started some controversy because the courts said that the Fifth Amendment protected property and “Not being citizens, they can claim none of the rights or privileges belonging to a citizen” so southerners could have their slaves in free territory and have them continue life as a slave there. The northerners were irritated at this verdict and the fact that the people of the Supreme Court were mainly southerners which meant this decision was no more than a bias one. Tensions between both the north and south were boiling the north opposed the spread of slavery and the southerners were continuously trying to spread it, which inevitably led to the states wanting to secede from one another. (American Spirit 425-428)
36 comments:
I greatly disagree with with the biast decision made by the the supreme court mainly due to the fact that many of them were southerners who despised free blacks. Their arguments were that of "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution".(A.S,C.1, pg.425-426)
This decision also gave southerners an assurance that the "The sanctity of slave property was ringingly reaffirmed." (A.S,C.1,pg.426-427)They felt that he was just property and that property posses no rights.
This decision upset people in the North and brought about the idea of "Every man will be forced to choose between disunion and the guilt of an accompliance in the crime of slavery."(A.S,C.3,pg.427-428)
The Dread Scott Decision was absolutley outrageous on how it started off. This slave in my perspective had every right to sue for the right of his freedom. But the Supremem Court did have a good contradiction when it came to, a slave is a piece of property therefor treating it like cattle, and cattle do not have rights like we humans/people do. I understand how he felt considering he was a slave on free soil, i would want to be free too because who wants to be a slave on free land? not me! but because Lincoln stated that any slave who intentionally came from a slave state and then taken to a free state alongside his master would thus still be considered a slave, slimmed down his chances to nothing of becoming a free citizen. It was absolutley ludacrious to know that many citizens considered these slaves to be like creatures. This slave went through many trials thus finally leading to one of his old masters son buying him and his wife then setting him free.
The Dred Scott decision divided the North and the South. The South was deligted with the decision but the Northerner Republicans and abolitionist were unhappy with it. They regarded it as an opinion not a decision. This defiance angered the Southerners and "they began to wonder anew how much longer they would remained joined to a section that refused to honor the Supreme Court..." (American Pageant p. 417)
The Dred Scott case, in my opinion was a bias case at the very least. A white supreme court justice, who favored slavery, should not have been able to make the choice whether or not black men could be citizens. (American Spirit)
The handing down of the Dred Scott by the Supreme Court but a huge emphasis on the recent conflict between the North and the South. It was, after all "the opening paper-gun blast of the Civil War". Dred Scott was a slave for five years before leaving his master to live on free soil. He was trying to sue for his freedom, but the Supreme Court made it more complicated then it had to be. Since he was a slave and never actually had his freedom he was still considered property and therefore could not sue in a federal court; Fifth Amendment. Stated that the citizens could not be deprived of their property.
This incident boosted the moral of the South. Northern Republicans however were very much infuriated. These opinions sparked questions asking how long could the U.S. stay joined.
I believe the ruling in the case of Dred Scott was fair as property can't be taken away along with life and liberty as stated in the constitution. It was also fair seeing as how the slave or property shouldn't be able to sue its owner in supreme court, a chair can't ask for compensation as a table can't sue for being used. this also seems fair as to being the lesser of two evils, say they had not made the ruling, this would have given the south another reason to rise against the union, while making this decision would only displease the northerners and free slaves.( A.S vol 1 425-428)
When Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his master to both two free territories such as Illinois and Wisconsin, he sued for his freedom. Unfortunately, he wasnt allowed to make a case because he wasnt consider a citizen, even in the state of Missouri. What the court basically came to was everyone (white) had the right to their property and is protected under the constitution. In a way it voids the Missouri compromise.(C1) (Am. Spirit, pp. 425-426)
When the south heard of the Dred Scott Decision, they were delighted because it was reassurance that not only could they take their slaves into free territory but they can keep them there. "Not being citizens, they can claim none of the rights or privileges belonging to a citizen." (C2) (Am. Spirit, pp. 426-427)
While the south loved the Dred Scott Decision, the north hated it. They didnt like the fact that any slave owner could bring their slaves up to the north and say I bought them in the south. In the north there is no protection against slavery and it can be introduced. Personally, I would agree and side with the north. Its understandable how slave owners can bring their slaves to free territory but morally its unjust. (C3) (Am. Spirit, pp. 427)
In the Supreme Court decision of Dred Scott, the ruling stood that if a fugitive slave escaped into free territory, they're still a fugitive slave and never formally gained citizenship, nor could gain citizenship, or even sue in court due to being property in the eyes of the government. Despite this being a moral and political issue, in order to abide by what the constitution said, the vote to protect the right to property was a one in which I felt was a correct call. Even though the Supreme Court was mainly Southern which could lead to a sort of biased decision, I felt it was a good call under the law of the land. Technically since slaves are property, which is protected under the Constitution, they had to abide by it. Yes the South felt like it had won its rights and the North was down right outraged after hearing the reality of slavery through the eyes of authors such Harriet Beecher, but the call was fair and justified. The only downside to this decision would be the escalating tension caused by the potential unbalance of slave state over free states that enter the union. Another thing I felt was that slavery was rather a primitive concept as Americans were industrializing and it was a proven fact that their was more money to be made, but the South wanted to stick to their way of life they had been used to, which I felt if they would of changed, would have long term effects that out weighed the short term turmoil.(AS p.426-428)
In 1846 Dred Scott, a black slave in Illinois, sued for his freedom being that he was in free territory.Finally in 1857 the case reached the Supreme Court. The Court said that since he was an African American slave he was not a citizen but merely property, and any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which did not let you deny property rights to a property owner without due process of law.
The issue on the decision of the Dred Scott case is very scepticle. Both sides seemed to have a justifiable points on why their view was correct. On the side of the South he was technically a piece of property due to the fact that he was bought by his owner. This would justify the account in which they said since he is property, that he has no rights and therefore cannot sue in court. On the otherhand for the side of the North, the ruling of the case would go against the constitutional basis of popular sovereignty in each state. So since he was in a state where popular sovereignty decide it was free, Dred Scott not being able to be a free man was going against the govt. So with both of these legitimate arguments it is hard to see which side is more plausible in their premise.(A.S. Pgs.426-427)
The Dred Scott Decision, to me was a fair decision because he was still a slave when he moved. There arguement was that slaves were property and you couldn't get sued by your own property. Hence the reason his trial was over seen. Another reason was also because he was not a citizen of missouri. So US had no jurisdiction over the case. (TAS pg 426)
Although both sides opposing and agreeing to the Dred Scott decision had reasonable points, the whole case was actually unfair and in my belief somewhat rigged. I believe the case was unfair due to not just their argument but other factors. Possibly the most important and decisive one being that in that court case the majority of the justices were southerners. It seems quite unfair that the majority of those who decide whether a slave is free are those who support and want to have slavery. So in my opinion the whole case was rigged and Dred Scott never had a chance.(A.S. Pgs.426-427)
I feel the decision was unfair. Slaves should have a right to be free as they are people and should not be treated as property. I feel that he shouldn't technically get his freedom cause he was still in possession of his master, but it was wrong to deny his freedom nonetheless. We were all created equal, if he wants his rights, let him have his rights, he is human just like us despite his color so he should have his freedom. If the slave would earn his freedom the right way for how the times allowed him or her too, then give him the natural rights he/she deserved. (AS. 425-426)
The Dred Scott decision is incredibly controversial. On one hand, Congress was right for saying that they were not allowed to deprive people of their property without due process of the law, according to the 5th amendment, however they also passed the Missouri Compromise, which banned slavery anywhere above the 36"30' parallel. And even AFTER the Missouri Compromise was done away with for the Kansas Nebraska Act, Illinois was a free state!
But then again, one of the most powerful arguments for the South was that they could take their slaves anywhere they pleased, and Congress could do nothing about it without trying them under the 5th amendment and due process of the law. (American Pageant p. 417-418)
The Supreme Court did have reason in denying Dred Scott's case because the Constitution does say that only citizens of the US have the right to sue. It also protects the right to property, which is even worse on Scott's part (Spirit p.426-27). This decision upset free states because it doesn't apply the concept of popular sovereignty. (Spirit p. 417).
The Dred Scott decision was a biast Supreme Court trial that was tried by southern affiliated justices. Dred scott sued for his freedom after his master died. He claimed that he should be freed since he lived in the free territories for a substanial amount of time. The court decided against Dred Scott, declaring that he had no right to even sue in federal court, because he was not a US citizen. (AP 417-418)
Dred Scott, a once Missouri slave had sued for his freedom where he lived (which was also on his own free soil). But Dred Scott had many problems ahead of him. One of them were the problem of taken his case into consideration because of the fact of him not being a citizen of Missouri, thus the judgement of the court wanting to cancel this particular case. (AS. pg. 425-426. C1). But the South had grew pleasure out of this particular case, judging that the colored population are not citizens of the United States. Which means they shouldn't be able to take cases to court whatsoever, and slaves not having rights compared to a regular citizen (AS. pg 426-427. C2). Thus the North arguing that the people in the South should be enforced and the Southerns were trying to get the Doctrine to be presented, which meant that any slaveholder in the south can take his slaves and himself to the north (AS. pg. 427-428. C3).
Dred Scott was a Southern slave from Missouri whom had to live nearly his entire life as what was compared to being like a caged animal. He managed to escape to the North and sued to gain his freedom from his malicious slave owner. (Spirit Pg 425-426 C1) Since slaves didn't have rights whatsoever, it became difficult to make a justifiable and possible case that could be won. (Spirit Pg 426-427 C1-C2) Dred Scott lost this case as any and all citizen had the right to their property and at the time slaves were considered property. While this trial was lost, major issues still arose within the central functions of the government. This meant that any of the northern states were able to house Southern men with slaves. This meant that slavery was now able to be spread all across the U.S. which breaks not only the 36/30 divide but even the Kansas Missouri act. (Spirit Pg 427-428 C3) The Dred Scott Decision was a simple lawsuit that wound up shining a light on a much bigger issue. The textual conflicts between legal documents.
The Dred Scott Decision was caused by Dred Scott's lawsuit for freedom. Because he was a slave, he could not do that because he was considered "property". Only citizens can do that.The south unanimously decided to continue the case. Laws contradicted each other. If a slave owner took his slave to a free state, then the slave is still a slave, but if its a free state then that means the slave can do as he pleases.(AS p.425-27)
The Dred Scott decision was undoubtedly biased. The majority of the supreme court was comprised of slave owners. They ruled,not surprisingly ,that Dred Scott was a black slave and not a citizen, and he hence could not sue in the federal government.Since a slave was property, he or she remained a slave even entering free territory.This statement was supported by the 5th amendment in the constitution, and could not deprive people of their property with out due process of law.considering this now slavery could be any where in the united states.i believe that the accusation that slaves are mere "property" and not human beings, shows perfectly how the intentions of southerners were the most immoral and inhumane, despite what is written in the constitution.(A.P,417-418)
Due to the Dred Scott Decision, male black slaves were not considered citizens, or so said the Constitution. Thus they were not able to sue for anything. To me this seems a little harsh considering that blacks were also people. Also the decision wasn't made under fair conditions. (TAP, p.417)
The entire Civil War was basically over slavery and economy. The South, which was pro slave, wanted to keep slavery because they said that it helped with the growing cotton industry. The North, which was mostly anti-slavery, wanted a more industrialized economy and saw slavery as cruel and unusual. (TAP, p.409-417) With the election of Lincoln, the south only got angrier which caused secession from the Union.(TAP, p.427) All the actions that took place were done over sheer emotion and no clear headed thinking. All that was going through these mens' minds was that they wanted to keep life the way they had it and they were willing to fight to defend what they thought was right.
Dred Scott, a black slave was taken by his master to the north side, or the free states side. Even though he was in a free state, he was still cocidered as his masters property. (C1) Dred Scott and seemed to escape ans demand his freedom concidering he was in a free state. So he went and sued. However, The supreme court told him he could not sue because he was not a citizen but a black slave. (C1) The south was overjoyed by this Dred scott decision. Slaves could be taken into the territory of the free states. (C2) The north on the other hand did not like this and was shocked. The imposed that if slavery could not be barred from the territores, then the constituional basts of popular sovereignty was in doubt. (C3) This decision was impossed by Abraham Lincoln while Stephen Douglas was for it. This was a big event in the civil war.
American Spirit Book, The Dred Scott Decision Source C.
The Dred Scott decision was an unfair trail by which the victim was prosecuted by a bias Court. The bias was clearly exhibited by Chief Justice Roger Taney when he stated that blacks were “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” (Chapter 19, C2). For the time being, not granting slaves’ citizenship was expected although some other rulings were a much more bizarre. The neglecting of the Missouri Compromise which prohibits slavery above the 36° 30’ parallel was unconstitutional. In stating that property – including slaves – could be brought into any territory or state implied that slavery was unrestricted. Thus, all states were slave states (C1). The South had no right to make such ludicrous conclusions from the Dred Scott decision.
The so called Dred Scott Bombshell(Dred Scott Decision)was a case in which Scott sued for his freedom because he had lived in a slave-free territory for five years (A.P.,417). The supreme court used this opportunity to rule that slavery should be allowed in free states because of the Fifth amendment, which stopped congress from deprive the people of their property(A.P., 417). I strongly disagree with the court's decision. The Fifth amendment is part of the US constitution in which it is written that all men are created equal and that the rights of men shall be preserved. That whole concept includes the slaves not only the white men, in reality their reason for the ruling contradicts itself therefore their ruling should not be enforced.
The Dred-Scott decision is a controversial topic because a high power, the Supreme Court, clarified that black men and women are not citizens of the United States and have absolutely no rights.(AP pg. 426-427) Dred-Scott's owner may have moved into free territory and according to the Missouri Compromise of 1820 there will be no slavery taking place North of 30 36 parallel,(AP pg. 426) but still Dred-Scott was classified as property and therefore he had no right to sue. There were mixed responses to this ruling, the North and South both acknowledged that slavery had no boundaries, slavery will spread North and the compromises will be voided, but the North had another comment to add to this, the supreme court was bias because it was made up of mostly slave holders.(AP pg.427) The Dred-Scott decision only created more tensions between the North and South.
I believe that the Dred Scott decision was not only utterly unfair but also a very biassed decision taken by Chief Justice Taney from the slave state of Maryland. They ruled that Scott was never a citizen and thus did not have the power to sue for his freedom even though he was technically on free soil now. The pro slavery majority in the court ruled that a slave was property and could thus be taken to any part of the country and remain a slave even though they were currently located in a free state. (AS, p.425 source, 1C) "The Missouri Compromise, banning slavery north of the 36 30', had been repealed three years earlier by the Kansas-Nebraska act." (AP, p. 418) The North saw this as a way that the South could make any slave into a slave state. They were upset because most northern states were against slavery, most were not in fact abolitionist but they were mad at the south for disregarding what they originally had said. The south even went as far as the court ruling that the Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. The north was greatly upset and cried that the ruling of the Dred Scott case was merely an opinion and thus should not reflect on what was to happen in regards to slavery in the north. The north said that the "decision was no more binding than the views of a 'southern debating society'" (AP, p. 418) This belittlement greatly angered the southerners. I believe that the court never had the right to declare that Dred Scott and other slaves were not people or citizens because the constitution protects all men life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The Dred Scott decision was one that impacted not only the spread of slavery but the moral of the United States of America. It was this decision that allowed slavery to spread with impunity for the law could not take property from its people, a fact the south rejoiced over (D:2, The American Spirit Ch 19). Furthermore it set the tone and moral that if slavery can spread so easily then even popular sovereignty was meaningless for it would not be able to contain it (D:3, The American Spirit Ch 19).
Dred Scott was an uneducated slave,who was taken by his master to the state of Minnesota, which was free territory because it layed above the Missouri Compromise of 1820.(AS, PG.425)With the influence of a certain number of abolitionist Scott sued for his freedom, the case was appealed and sent to the Supreme court.(AS PG.426)The Supreme Court ruled that a slave was incapable of suing because they were only property and were protected for their masters with the constitution.This was a decision that angered many northeners because they saw that it was unfair to Scott because he was a human being and that the constitution protected him from the right of freedom.The ruling of the court greatly influence abolitionists to keep fighting for equal rights to all people including blacks.(AS PG.427)
The Dred Scott Decision basically established that the government had no control on where slavery would be banned. Because slaves were seen as property, Congress could not take them away from their owners without due process of law (thanks to the fifth amendment). This meant that a slaveholder could take his slaves to northern Union territories (where slavery was banned by the Missouri Compromise) and still, legally, keep his slaves. This decision brought joy to many southern slaveholders because it meant they could introduce slavery to new territories, and inferiorated northern abolitionist that were trying to stop the spread of slavery.
(AP pp. 417 & 418)
The Dred Scott decision was named after Dred Scott who sued for his freedom. The case was appealed from the circuit court to the Supreme Court which inflamed an important question: was a slave a citizen under the Constitution? Slaves were meant as property, not as people. "A slave could be taken with impunity into the territories and perhaps also into the free states".(The American Spirit, p.426)
With the Dred Scott decision it was considered a win for the south and a loss for the north. The blacks were denied there citizenship. This case was twisted into a political issue. It could have been thrown out due to the technical grounds alone. ( American pageant pg. 417)
There was a republican defiance because of the tribunal"meaning court" that intensified by an awareness that a majority of its members were southern and by the conviction that it had debased itself. Southerners were mad by their defiance. Bitterness caused by the dred Scott decision was deepened by hard times. (American pageant pg.418)
In 1846, Dred Scott tried to sue for his right to be free because he was in free territory. (Dred Scott Decision)Eventually, the case had made its way to the Supreme Court around 1857. They had ruled that although he was on free soil, he still didnt have any say about it because he was "property" and had no rights. No matter where he was taken with his master, free states or not, he was still owned and considered property.(AS p.425-27)
The Dred Scott Decision pleased many southerners but angered many northerners. The supreme court ruled that Scott was property and therefore did not have the right to sue for freedom, even above the 36 30' that was established as free territory many years earlier. The decision ruled the Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional, and said that government could not ban slavery from any territories, regardless of the territorial legislatures choose. Abolitionists saw the decision as a biased opinion; the south was angered by the refusal to honor the supreme court and began to wonder how long they could stay in such a defiant union. This lead to more tension among the north and south, and was a big factor leading to the war.
(AP pgs417-418) (AS pgs425-428)
The Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott Decision that if there was a fugitive slave that ran away to the free territory that they could not be citizens, it was for this reason that the Illiterate Missouri slave Dred Scott was not protected under the constitution. This started some controversy because the courts said that the Fifth Amendment protected property and “Not being citizens, they can claim none of the rights or privileges belonging to a citizen” so southerners could have their slaves in free territory and have them continue life as a slave there. The northerners were irritated at this verdict and the fact that the people of the Supreme Court were mainly southerners which meant this decision was no more than a bias one. Tensions between both the north and south were boiling the north opposed the spread of slavery and the southerners were continuously trying to spread it, which inevitably led to the states wanting to secede from one another. (American Spirit 425-428)
Post a Comment