In 1854, a slave by the name of Dred Scott sued his master for the rights to his freedom. Scott claimed his master had brought him from the slave state of Missouri to the free territory of Wisconsin and the free state Illinois, before moving back to Missouri. Because his master had moved into free territory, Scott argued that he was no longer enslaved and should gain his freedom. When the federal court ruled against him however, Scott appealed to the Supreme Court. Finally, on March 6th 1857, the Supreme Court ruled against Scott. Chief Justice Robert Taney, who had written the Court’s decision, ruled that because Scott was a slave, he was not a citizen and had no rights to sue in a United States court. Additionally, Taney said that by banning slavery Congress was actually taking away property, a direct violation of the 5th amendment (Guarantees the right not to be deprived of property without due process of law). On that account, all congressional efforts to ban slavery in the territories were prohibited.
Justices John Mclean and Benjamin Curtis both strongly dissented on both points. They showed that the U.S. Constitution and other laws had recognized African Americans as citizens. Taney’s opinion in Dred Scott legally greatly expanded the reach of slavery, and politically heightened the tensions between the North and South.
In the end, it took five years of civil war to find if Taney’s opinion would be the law. Immediately after the war however, the federal government abolished slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment and then extended state and national citizenship with the Fourteenth Amendment to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." Taney's opinion went on to be considered one of the worst decisions ever by the Supreme court, and the case could never be used as a precedent.
By Kiki G, Matt M
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd never heard about any of that before (the trial part, I mean). Or maybe I just forgot all of it, but that's a different story. Excellent work, this was quite enlightening.
ReplyDeleteI've heard of the trial before, but I never knew the whole story behind it. Good job on your work; it was easy to follow and summarized the events well. I learned quite a lot about this trial.
ReplyDeleteI've heard of the trial before, and I remember much of the result, but it was a nice brush-up. Like most of the posts on here, adding an extra space between paragraphs would make it easier to read. Great job.
ReplyDeleteI remember Dred Scott was a slave who won rights or something from middle school... But this summary worked well in showing us the trial and not being so long it got boring. Visuals would have been nice.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of this trial either. It's a good summary and it is easy to understand. It also shows the beginning of resistance to the slavery. I think you may need to add some opinion that is your own.
ReplyDeletei have never heard the full story of this case and you did a really good job of summarizing it. Maybe you could have included what the justices ruled and who was for or against it. Overall good job
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of really good facts and I learned a lot about the case that I didn't learn before so good job :)
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting blog. It was easy to read and it was a good summary of what happened. I had never heard the whole story. good job.
ReplyDelete