More handpicked essays just for you.
The civil rights movement impact on america
The impact of the civil rights act of 1964
The impact of the civil rights act of 1964
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
When congress was siding more with free states, Southern Leader, John C. Calhoun, created the “doctrine of nullification” which states that “a state has the constitutional right to nullify a national law” (73). This action almost lead to war when South Carolina invoked this doctrine and Andrew Jackson took military action to keep the union in tact. Although both sides were able to reach a compromise, a civil war will take place 30 years from then. Another spike in tensions was the Dred Scott decision (1857). A slave named Dred Scott argued that since his master died in a free state, and the Missouri Compromise of 1820, a federal law, made slavery in a free state illegal, he was a free man.
Dred Scott Vs SandFord The case, Dred Scott vs Sandford, (1857) better known as the Dred Scott case was a crucial decision that affected America and it’s black population. Free blacks in America weren’t able to sue the court. The concept of popular sovereignty was also questioned, and blacks with ancestors were imported to America was slave could no longer become citizens. The Case ruled that slaves in free countries are still slaves.
The two parties in this case are Dred Scott and John Sanford. Scott, a former slave bought by Dr. John Emerson, argued that when him and the Emerson family moved to Illinois, which was a free state, that he became a free man and no longer could be held as a slave to the Emerson family when they moved to the slave state of Missouri. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson’s brother, argued that since he went to Missouri with Mrs. Emerson, and that it was legal in Missouri to hold slaves, that he was still considered to be Mrs. Emerson’s property. Once Dr. Emerson died, Scott and his family sued Mrs. Emerson for false imprisonment, but Mrs. Emerson won the case in a Missouri Circuit court when Scott’s lawyers were unable to prove that Emerson was holding him as a slave. Scott’s lawyers argued for a retrial and it went to the Missouri Supreme Court.
According to Bricker Jason, “Dred Scott resided for several years with his owner in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, both of which prohibited slavery. Scott later claimed that this made him a free man, and he sued his owner to gain his freedom. The court ruled, “That slaves are property not people, or citizens, and that the Missouri Compromise prohibition on slavery about 36° 30° degree is unconstitutional” ( Edward T 398). The foundation of the division was seemly breaking further because the north felt the decision was in favor of the south, as it furthered their pro-slavery ideology as slaves were seen as something other than humans. Those who opposed slavery called it, “willful perversion of the law.”
The Dred Scott Decision made the Civil War unavoidable because of the treatment of African Americans regarding their equality and opportunity. Dred Scott was a slave in Virginia who tried to sue for his freedom in court. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court level, where the justices found that, as a slave, Dred Scott was property that had none of the legal rights of that of a white man. The Northerners hated this decision because it meant that slavery could spread into all territories. This inflamed tensions as the Northerners felt that the South was trying to expand slavery into the free states and would be able to do so.
On December 24th 1851 court was adjourned until March 15th 1852. Dred Scott did not deny that the case had been heard before; he did however state the decisions were never based on Missouri law. In Dred Scott’s conclusion he stated, “slavery was the will of God and times now are not what they were when former decisions on the subject were made”. Basically Scott knew racial and sectional prejudices played a role in the decision. Justice Hamilton Gamble agreed with Dred Scott that times have changed but disagreed that any principles had changed.
The aftermath of the Kansas-Nebraska Act began the violence known as Bleeding Kansas, which was the result of countless conflicts of pro-slaver and anti-slavery settlers. To make matters worse three years later, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney stated, “… the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guarantied to the citizens of the United States, in every State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time….”11
The case of Dredd Scott vs Sanford and its ruling by the Supreme Court had significantly influenced the subject of slavery. The effect of the decision declared that no black, enslaved or free, was allowed to claim citizenship in the US. Slaves were considered property and had no right to consider themselves individuals. The Dredd Scott case decision specified that Congress wasn’t allowed to abolish slavery in US territories.
These court cases are a big impact to African American rights and their lives. Dred Scott v. Sanford, Dred Scott and his slave owner went to Illinois (which is a free state) then came to Missouri (which is a Slave state) but unfortunately the slave owner died, Dred Scott thought since he just came from a free state he can get freedom so he sued and his case went up 2 the Supreme Court which he loss cause a slave that 's below a regular person can 't sue the government and stayed a slave. The importance of this case is that slaves are not citizen and can 't sue the government and congress had a lack of power ban slavery in U.S. Territories As to the second case Shelley bought a house in Missouri but in that neighborhood there was a there was a agreement not all has sign to keep the colored away from the neighborhood so some of the neighbors were angry and wanted to kick Shelly out of the neighborhood so she sued the head of the neighborhood and won the case because the neighbors thought her there violated he 14th amendment which didn 't and was able to live in her house. The importance of this case was the case didn 't violate the 14th amendment and it changed for black people to buy a house
Dred Scott vs Sanford The Dred Scott vs Sanford case was a very pivotal moment in U.S. history for many reasons. After doing some research, I got a better understanding of the constitutional issues, a logical interpretation, the significance and lastly a commentary of my opinion of the final ruling. The first topic is the constitutional issues. The case had been brought before the court by Dred Scott, a slave who had lived with his owner in a free state before returning to the slave state of Missouri.
America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.
The forefathers of the United States built this country on the ideals of freedom and equality for all people. Unfortunately, the fight for equality and freedom did not end with the revolutionary war. The fight has continued throughout the decades. Many of these issues were fought in the courtroom. Auburn University created an online Alabama Encyclopedia, there, the following quote stated, “Scottsboro became an international cause celebre that dramatically encapsulated the American south troubled post reconstruction history of legal and extralegal racial violence, the social and political upheaval of the great depression, and the lingering cultural divide between the north and south.”
Once he arrived back in Missouri, Scott said that because he had lived on free soil, therefore, he should be well thought as a free American. The deliberation was carried out to the supreme court and it became a very famous ruling. When the Dred Scott case was done and he was to remain a slave just because Illinois law had no effect on him in Missouri. The Dred Scott became a symbol for the freedom of slaves for years to
The end result of the Dred Scott decision was Chief Justice Roger Taney 's decision that Congress did not possess the jurisdiction to stop slavery from spreading into other territories, even if they were considered free. Even worse, any free Black could now be allowably forced into slavery. Being forced into slavery was also seen as being beneficial to the free Blacks. Instead of reaching a decision as President Buchanan had hoped, it had started a rapid expansion of the conflict. This rapid expansion over the issue of slavery eventually led to the Civil War.
Causes of the Civil War “No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide,” - Abraham Lincoln. The Civil War is known as one of the greatest tragedies in American history. With over 620,000 deaths, it is by far the most devastating war (“Civil War Facts”). When studying the Civil War, one must question why it even happened in the first place.
