Dred scott v sanford
The Dred Scott decision was an important ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that had a significant influence on the issue of slavery. The case was decided in 1857 and, in effect, declared that no black--free or slave--could claim United States citizenship. Slaves were viewed as property, and such had no individual right. Furthermore, the decision indicated that Congress could not prohibit slavery in United States territories. I believe that the decision was morally wrong and failed to recognize the rights of people to be free. In addition, the ruling had many political and social implications, aroused angry resentment in the North and led the nation a step closer to civil war. The decision was finally overridden after the Civil War with the introduction and passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, adopted in 1868, extended citizenship to former slaves and gave them the benefit and protection of individual rights. (textbook, 295) The Dred Scott the decision involved a slave owned by U.S. Army surgeon, John Emerson. Emerson lived in Missouri, a state that permitted slavery. In 1834, Scott went to live with Emerson in Illinois, a state that prohibited slavery. They later lived in the W
This could only change when the constitution was amended and slavery prohibited. In essence, it supported the views held by the South that slaves were property, not citizens who had individual rights. Thus they could be bought and sold in manner no different the other property. Slaves had no rights and were not given the respect of private family life or basic human rights. It failed to provide any moral direction for the nation and lost an opportunity to advance the rights of those in need. Because Sanford did not live in Missouri, Scott's lawyers were able to transfer the case to a federal court. Justice Taney argued that because slaves were property, Congress could not forbid slavery in the territories without violating a slave owner's constitutional right to own property. They were not protected by the constitutional garentee to individual freedom. The court could have simply dismissed the case after ruling on Scott's citizenship. By a majority of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott could not bring a suit in a federal court. A state circuit court ruled in Scott's favor, but the Missouri Supreme Court later reversed the decision. However, in the north the reaction was quite different. The decision, supported by the South, helped enforce their way of life and their belief that slaves were property.
Common topics in this essay:
South South,
Dred Scott,
Court United,
Emerson Emerson,
Frederick Douglas,
Bill Rights,
Roger Taney,
Supreme Court,
Civil War,
Missouri Compromise,
dred scott,
supreme court,
court ruled,
slaves property,
missouri compromise,
own property,
civil war,
civil war decision,
human property,
rights respect,
slaves viewed,
court ruled scott,
dred scott decision,
slaves viewed property,
|
Acceptance Essays
