Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
Dred Scott was taken back into slavery and accused Sandford because Scott was in a free states and claimed that he was in the free state long enough to be a free slave. The Supreme court ruled against Dred Scott, this decision affected blacks preventing them to become citizens and an giving them the right to appeal to a jury and making it harder for a slave to escape because the free states didn’t make a runaway slave a free slave. The case also affected popular sovereignty. Where states got to choose if they were to be a free states or a slave
Somerset V. Stewart Case was a legal case that took place in England in 1772. The debate was whether James Somerset, a previously enslaved African man who escaped to England, should be freed or not. This court case took place during the colonial period of America and although it was an English court case, its significance traveled further than England’s border and even to the colonies. This case played an indirect but major role in what would become American history. Somerset V. Stewart's legal case foreshadowed conflict about slavery that would eventually meet its peak in the American Civil War.
The civil rights case of Hernandez .vs. Texas was settled in The Supreme Court on the 3rd of May 1954, changing the lives of Mexican Americans everywhere. Attorneys Gus Garcia, Carlos Cardena, and John Herrera took on a case involving a Mexican man named Pete Hernandez, who was being sentenced to prison on a murder charge. The attorneys wanted to take Petes case because they believed he was being tried unfairly considering, he was sentenced by a jury of all Anglo people. In order for a case to be properly decided, the defendant must be questioned in front of a jury of his own peers to insure that there will not be prejudiced in the jury's ruling.
Scottsboro Trial Two young women is all it takes to create one of the most tragic epoch's of African-American history after the abolishment of slavery. When Victoria Price, and Ruby Bates decide to ride the rails to look for some incentive in their lives, they witness an opportunity to ruin nine young black boy's life. A fight broke out after a gang of white boys agitated, and tried to force a gang of black boys to jump off a train.
When one holds a prestigious position on the United States Supreme Court, they possess the opportunity to alternate the future of the country. However, that impulse should not be entertained in the majority of instances, as with the Dred Scott Case of 1857. Although that conflict should have dissolved after the subject dissolved, Chief Justice Roger Taney allegedly overextended his reach to determine the legality of another issue that had troubled the United States. In addition, the decision decided on the case itself negates the framework of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on an individual’s rights, regardless of who they might be. At the time of the Dred Scott Decision, the United States had become deadlocked over the controversy
Dred Scott was a slave who tried to sue his owner because he said since he lived in a free state he was a free man. The north went on to back up the dred scott by using the missouri compromise and that in the constitution the writers meant “we the people” as everybody including slaves, so that gives them the rights of a citizen. The south had many arguments one being the missouri compromise was unconstitutional and congress couldn’t tell states if they could be free or slave and what the can do with their property. Lastly slaves or former slaves for that matter had no rights of a citizen. In document H the fugitive slave act of 1850 it talks about how slave owners have the right to claim their slaves if they escape no matter where they escape to.
The state attracted citizens from both the North and the South, causing the disagreements of the opposing sides to become more evident. By the year 1855, issues emerged when proslavery and antislavery settlers were competing in order to outnumber one another in votes. Two years later, divisions between the North and South grew even stronger when the Supreme Court took on the case of Dred Scott. Scott, who was an African American slave, sued for his freedom after his masters had traveled with him to a free state. The Court, ruled by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, came to the conclusion that Scott was not a free man because he was property and it would be unconstitutional to take the property of a citizen.
Dred Scott was born was a slave in the state of Virginia and was owned by Peter Blow, who died in 1832. Scott only had two masters after Blow’s death; one lived in Wisconsin and later Illinois, both of which prohibited slavery, yet, Scott didn’t petition for freedom. Instead he met his wife Harriet. The two met their new master in Louisiana, who did not grant them freedom, so Scott looked for legal action to escape his slavery. Over a period of seven years, he went through trial and retrial until he was denied his final freedom in 1854.
I 'm Dred Scott I 've been fighting for my freedom for me and my family. Have you ever wondered what it 's like being a slave for your whole life and never got an education?Well I 'm going to tell you how I became free. I had no choice where I lived or where I went. We colored people were considered property to other people.
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
he Dred Scott decision of 1857 was a significant decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court that declared that blacks, regardless of whether they were free or a slave, had no legal standing because they were not American citizens. The decision was not the first to be made regarding Dred Scott; a Missouri jury ruled in Scott 's favour when Scott claimed that his residence in Illinois and Wisconsin made him free, but the state supreme court ruled against him, which lead to the case being escalated to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled against Scott 7-2. The Dred Scott decision is considered a landmark decision and is indicative of the tumultuous political climate of the time.
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.
Dred Scott was sued for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived for a time in a "free" territory. The Court ruled against him, saying that under the Constitution, he was his master 's property. The people involved with this court case are the Supreme Court,Dred Scott, and Chief Justice Roger B. The final judgment for this case ended up in Dred Scott 's favor.
Dred Scott was a slave who attempted to gain his freedom. Scott was owned by a man for the early part of his life, and then was sold to a new man once his original owner died (Tindall 672). He followed his new owner around the country, and lived in several free states (Tindall 672). Once his second owner died, Scott filed for his freedom (Tindall 672). After going through a rigorous process, the court finally decided that Scott had no grounds for his case because he was not actually a citizen (Tindall 672).
