ipl-logo

Why Is The Dred Scott Decision Important To American History

542 Words3 Pages

Property, a building or buildings and the land belonging to it or them. Are humans land? Apparently they are. In 1857, Dred Scott was treated as property, which someone should never experience. The Dred Scott Decision was important to American history and eventually led to the Civil War. The Dred Scott Decision was important since it changed the way African-Americans were viewed, and caused the Civil War since it caused Southern states to expand slavery. The Dred Scott Decision was significant to American history. The Dred Scott Decision was a crucial event for the entire United States. This significant choice started in 1846, and came to a close in 1857. Prior to this decision, Dred was enslaved in Alabama, then was brought to Missouri. From there, he was sold to John Emerson, who brought him to Wisconsin territory. Soon after, he was brought back to Missouri. Once in Missouri, Dred Scott, and his wife Harriet filed for their freedom in Missouri court. Eleven years later, Chief Justice Roger Taney denied Scott in Washington D.C. due to three rulings; African-Americans had no rights in federal court, Slave states no longer had to follow the doctrine “Once free, Always free”, Congress should never have banned slavery in any territories. …show more content…

Based on the court rulings, African-Americans had no rights whatsoever. This can be proven by one of the three rulings made by the Supreme Court; “African-Americans have no rights in federal court.“ Consequently, African-Americans were treated even worse than before, since they couldn’t do anything to be free. Additionally, the second ruling; “Congress should have never banned slavery” almost led to slavery being legalized in every state. If slavery would have been legalized nationally, our country would not be like it is

Show More
Related
561 Words | 3 Pages

Roger Brooke Taney made history in the 1857 Dred Scott Case by ruling that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. This controversial historical figure died on October 12, 1864, in Washington, D.C. One of Robert’s most famous quotes was "What Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free state. "What Robert is saying is that a master of a slave can do whatever he/she wants with that slave. By the time Roger B Taney became Chief Justice, Taney had become a staunch supporter of slavery, even though he had manumitted eleven slaves he inherited as a young man and made anti-slavery statements when serving as defense

Read More
1028 Words | 5 Pages

Dred Scott, a slave who frequently moved from the pro-slavery Missouri and antino-slavery Illinois, offered to buy his freedom after his master died. However, the master’s wife refused, which as a result, Scott sued her. Scott’s suit originated from the basis of how because that he had lived in a non-slave state, he was no longer a slave.. Through a long process of 11 years, his case eventually reached the Supreme Court in Scott vs. Sandford. The Chief Justice of this caseourt was Roger B. Taney.

Read More
509 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
876 Words | 4 Pages

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.”

Read More
470 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
1614 Words | 7 Pages

Dred Scott, one of the most famous and iconic figures in American history, impacted the United Sates by causing awareness and a voice to not only the free black people living during that time, but slaves as well. Other than Marbury v. Madison case, the Dred Scott Trial declared a federal law unconstitutional, prior to the civil war. The case brought to light a topic that would soon explode-slavery. Many scholars believe that it is what brought the United States closer to the civil war and the case actually inspired the Republican party to rise. Dred Scott’s case was controversial because a slave in his time period had never gone to Scott’s extent to fight for his freedom and it inspired not only slaves, but those who advocated to end slavery

Read More
1873 Words | 8 Pages

In the Dred Scott vs Sandford Court Case, the US supreme court proved this by declaring that black slaves were just considered property and could not sue in court. Dred Scott, an african slave, came with his owner to the Northwest Ordinance during the mid eighteenth century and lived there for two years. However, Congress previously declared that slavery was outlawed within that territory within the Missouri Compromise, as it stated any states above the 36 parallel were free states. As a result Dred Scott believed that he should have been freed and sued his owner till it got to the Supreme Court, where he was declared as just property, not as United States citizen, therefore not allowed to sue in court. “Dred Scott was a negro slave, the lawful property of the defendant; and as to the issue thirdly above joined, we, the jury, find that wife of said Dred Scott, and Eliza and Lizzie, the daughters of the said Dred Scott, were negro slaves, the lawful property of the defendant."

Read More
601 Words | 3 Pages

Not only is it a big part of History, but slavery could possibly still exist today if it wasn 't emancipated by President Lincoln. We can apply our knowledge from the Dred Scott decision to conflicts in racism today. We can compare where we are in racism and conflict to when the Dred Scott vs Sandford case was happening in 1857. Applying our knowledge from the Dred Scott decision is good because we know that, in history, African Americans couldn 't become citizens and were called property. Keeping America multicultural is important and we can do so by using our knowledge of the Dred Scott

Read More
731 Words | 3 Pages

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.

Read More
756 Words | 4 Pages

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.

Read More
1527 Words | 7 Pages

The Dred Scott decision became known as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. After the trial, the Slaves in America had a will to fight for the rights more than they ever had before. The trail infuriated the slaves and the abolitionist, which called for retaliation against the North. The challenges that the blacks had to face through the history of the United States were never easy and it was an uphill fight everyday for their freedom. There are just so many things that were caused because of this decision and it affected America in a way that changes it forever.

Read More
1820 Words | 8 Pages

Dred Scott was a slave who sought citizenship through the American legal system, and his case ended up in the Supreme Court. The Dred Scott Decision, in 1857, denied Scott’s decision to become a citizen by stating that no person with African blood has the right to become a U.S citizen. Besides denying citizenship to African-Americans, it also overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had restricted slavery in certain U.S. territories. However, even before that there were many “amendments” or new laws put in place which had effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise. For example, the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska.

Read More
94 Words | 1 Pages

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.

Read More
359 Words | 2 Pages

Thus, the decision prevented free blacks from advancing in society. The constitution did not apply to them, which consequently developed a lot of confusion and created problems the future free blacks and slaves in the United States. Last of all, even though free blacks were considered as free men, the court failed to recognize them as citizens. This meant that free blacks still did not receive the rights they deserved. The Dred Scott decision was to define the free black’s status and define what rights they did and did not have, since the constitution did not apply to them.

Read More
537 Words | 3 Pages

The impact in this cases that effected civil rights was that this case "moved the nation a step closer to the civil war"(Dred Scott vs

Read More

More about Why Is The Dred Scott Decision Important To American History

Related Topics

Open Document