Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner from the slave state of Missouri to the free states of Illinois and Wisconsin, and then taken back to Missouri. In 1854, Dred Scott appealed to the supreme court for his right to freedom, claiming that by having lived in the free states, he should be a free man. After several years, the supreme came to their decision on March 6, 1857, ruling that Dred Scott would remain a slave.
Supreme Court justice Roger Taney's reasoning was that since slaves were not citizens, they had none of the rights guaranteed to citizens under the constitution. Therefore, Dred Scott didn't even have the right to bring a lawsuit to federal court. In addition, Roger Taney also ruled that any ban of slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment since this amendment guarantees the right to not be deprived to property, and at the time, slaves were seen as property.
However, two of the other Supreme Court justices dissented on these rulings, claiming that African Americans were given citizenship under several laws, state constitutions, and the U.S. Constitution. Most Northerners felt the trial was unfair because the majority of Supreme Court justices were Southerners, unfairly biasing the outcome of the decision. Although this was a setback for the slavery debate, tensions between the North and South increased, eventually culminating in the civil war. In 1865, the North won the civil war and the Thirteenth Amendment was written into the U.S. Constitution, abolishing slavery and effectively preventing the Dred Scott v. Sandford case from ever acting as a precedent. From then on, the reasoning originally used to decide the outcome of Dred Scott's trial could no longer be used again.
Written by Derek.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice job on. You presented your facts really nicley
ReplyDeleteI Really like your summary. Its nice how you describe the case clearly so we understand it without any previous knowledge of the details about it.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing how one trial helped abolish slavery. I had learned about this trial, but had totally forgotten what it was about and I thought it was interesting the one of the reasons behind not giving Dred Scott a trial was that slaves were seen as property.
ReplyDeleteThis entry really helps to explain how different America was back then during times of slavery. The part relating to slaves as "property" in the Fifth Amendment, really surprised me, as I had never known that. Great job.
ReplyDeleteThis is a solid description of one of the most important events in the fight for slave's rights. You included a lot of details that are important to the case, such as the origin of the justices and the case's effects on the Civil War. The conclusion is also well done, as it describes the end of the Dred Scott precedent under the Thirteenth Amendment. Nice work!
ReplyDeleteI thought it was concise and informative. It also flowed really well. Nice dates/important settings.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis posting was straightforward and clearly presented the information reguarding the Dred Scott case. However, the narrative story telling style of the blog could be improved and in the first paragraph you forgot to type Court. I also liked how you wrote about the debate between slaves being property or humans.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis covered the subject of whether slaves were citizens or not, whether they were "men" or not, very well. Very solid, concise, well written.
ReplyDeleteI think you could've directly stated some of the general effects of this.
i really like your post. Its informative and easy to follow.
ReplyDeleteGood summary. The writing was easy to read and flowed will with nice transitions. I learned that the Dred Scott case was a critical turning point in the fight to abolish slavery.
ReplyDelete