Research the Dred Scott Decision. Give a brief description of the outcome and significance of the case. What might have happened if Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, in your opinion?
Dred Scott was a slave that had lived in a free state for 5 years. He tried to sue for his freedom but cheif justice determined since he was a slave he was property. Property could be taken anywhere by its owner and the government could not seize property based on the 5th admendment.I think that if Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott the south would have succeded sooner. M.P.H.
The Dred Scott Decision was a lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled that any people of African descent, whether free or slaves, could never become citizens of the United States, and Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in any federal territory. Dred Scott was a slave lived in Illinois for three years while his "master" was in the US Army. Since he was in Illinois, it would be considered a free state, and he was freed. After his "master" died, Scott worked as a hired slave. Eventually, Scott asked to buy his and his wife's freedom. The "master" wife refused, so Scott sued for his freedom since he was in a free state, he was legally free. If Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott, the north would not have been in anger as much, and maybe the country wouldn't have been as divided, thus delaying a Civil War for a brief period of time.
RESEARCH:In 1834, Dred Scott, a black slave, personal servant to Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. army surgeon, was taken by his master from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, and thence to Fort Snelling (now in Minnesota) in Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise. There he married before returning with Dr. Emerson to Missouri in 1838. After Emerson's death, Scott sued (1846) Emerson's widow for freedom for himself and his family (he had two children) on the ground that residence in a free state and then in a free territory had ended his bondage. He won his suit before a lower court in St. Louis, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision (thus reversing its own precedents). Scott's lawyers then maneuvered the case into the federal courts. Since J. F. A. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson's brother, was the legal administrator of her property and a resident ofNew York, the federal court accepted jurisdiction for the case on the basis of diversity of state citizenship. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the Supreme Court. In Feb., 1857, the court decided in conference to avoid completely the question of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and to rule against Scott on the ground that under Missouri law as now interpreted by the supreme court of that state he remained a slave despite his previous residence in free territory. However, when it became known that two antislavery justices, John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis, planned to write dissenting opinions vigorously upholding the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise (which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854), the court's Southern members, constituting the majority, decided to consider the whole question of federal power over slavery in the territories. They decided in the case of Scott v. Sandford (the name was misspelled in the formal reports) that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court's opinion that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Three of the justices also held that a black “whose ancestors were … sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. The court's verdict further inflamed the sectional controversy between North and South and was roundly denounced by the growing antislavery group in the North.
MY OPINION:If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott,Im sure the civil war wouldve been prolonged.The North wouldve looked down upon it because im sure the south wouldve craved liberation earlier.More slaves wouldve followed Scott's choices to possibly get emancipation.
The decision was a culmination of what many at that time considered a push to expand slavery. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the longstanding Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the North as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states. Thus, Democratic party politicians sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which naturally ended the "compromise." This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories.
Although Taney believed that the decision would settle the slavery question once and for all, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party.
The decision in general was that african americans and descents of those were not considered american citizens. This was pretty the last straw for the North thus being anohter one of the major events leading to the civil war.
If Taney had ruled in favor, it would have caused more havoc and he probably be known as a traitor to the people in the south. However, I don't think the concept of slavery would be affected, but what would happen after they are freed would be different.
In response to Miranda's post I agree with your summary in general, however, I do believe she could have gone into more detail and also explain her point of view a tad bit better.
In response to Jenna's response, I just have a simple wuestion to ask, of course she doesn't have to respond b/c she will probably never read this but if she does the question; in your opinion, what do you think will cause the civil war if the dred v sanford had not happened.
---Marcus Jones Period 3 ***Also I was absent friday (11/16/07) b/c I had to go to Las Vegas for a wedding.
Dred Scott was a slave that lived in Illinois with his master. They then moved to Wisconsin Territory, where Scott married (a legal contract which was prohibited in the south). In 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom. Roger Taney, the Chief Justice, ruled against Scott, stating that he was not a citizen of the United States and therefore couldn't sue. However, he went beyond this ruling. He added that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had been unconstitutional since Congress could not decide on the issue of slavery in a territory, regardless of popular sovereignty. The outcome of the case created an inflamed wave of anger in the abolitionists, but delighted many southern slaveowners. If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, I have no doubt that the southern "fire eaters" would have been enraged in such a manner that they would have attempted to commence the Civil War early. Whether or not the whole southern region would have decided to seceed is unknown, however.
I disagree with Jenna Porretta on her statement that the Civil War would have been prolonged if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott. Perhaps it would have had a more abrupt beginning, but it would definitely not last longer than it did simply because of the Dred Scott case.
Dred Scott was a slave who lived in the state of Illinois who sued for his freedom. The decision by Taney of the Supreme Court was that he was not a citizen and therefore couldn't sue. The court also stated that the Congress didn't have the right to decide whether a territory should be non slave, or slave (i.e. the Missouri Compromise). During this time period, the nation was clearly split. If Taney were to change his decision, the Civil War would have initated much earlier. I'm not sure that the South would quite seceed, but it would push them to the limit. *Alan Nguyen P.1
I strongly disagree with Jenna's comment saying that the Civil War would be prolonged because all evidence shows that the nation was on the brink of civil war.
The Dred Scott case is probably one of the more famous cases in American history which protains to the issue of slavery and man's rights. Dred Scott was a slave who had moved to Illinois with his master and resided there for five years. Scott sued for his freedom based on the fact that he was in a free state and lived their for a substantial amount of time. The judge residing over the case, chief justice Roger Tanny, ruled in favor of he master based on constitutional rights and ruling in favor of Scott would be an intrusion on the fifth admendment right. It Tanny ruled in favor of Scott i think this would have just further angered the south and perhaps led to an even earlier civil war. If the actual civil war wouldn't have erupt from this decision im sure a war of words between the north and south would have. Also the times of Franklin and jefferson and how to interpret the constitution would have come up with out a doubt.
Dred Scott was a slave serving a U.S. Navy officer. When his owner migrated to the free state of Illinois from the slave state of Missouri, Dred Scott was taken along with his master. They then migrated to the free territory of Wisconsin. Scott lived on free land for a long period of time. When his master died, Scott, aided by abolitionist lawyers, tried to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free because he lived on free land for a long period of time. The court, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled against Scott declaring that no slave or a descendent of a slave could be a citizen or ever had been a citizen in the past. Therefore, Scott could not sue in a federal court for he was not a citizen and had no rights, so he must remain a slave. The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. The Court declared it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law. The Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War. In my opinion, if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, then the North and South would not have grown distant, thus postponing the Civil War. Also, following Scott’s precedent, other slaves would try to get emancipated causing uproar in the South, eventually generating a war between the North and South. Hence, the Civil War was inevitable and would come about due to one outcome or another.
I agree with jenna porretta because i also think that the war would have been delayed a little because if not the Dred Scott decision, any other issue concerning slavery would have instigated the North and South to fight.
I disagree with mikeb who stated that the country wouldn't have been as divided. I disagree because if Taney favored Scott, wouldn't that anger the South?
Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in the free state of Wisconsin for 5 years with his master. Therefore, he tried to sue for his freedom citing the fact that it was illegal for him to remain a slave in a free state. However, when his case was taken to the Supreme Court, Roger Taney ruled that Scott was not a citizen of the United States due to the fact that he was a slave. In addition, Taney declared that Congress could not stop slavery in the territories as it violated the fifth amendment of property rights. The Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property and could therefore be taken anywhere with their masters. Also, this meant that the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional and void. This decision enfuriated the North and made the rift between North and South even bigger and put the two on a direct course to Civil War.
If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, it would have caused a big uproar in the South. Congressional support in the South was already going downhill and such a decision would have surely made the situation in the South worse thus leading to the Civil War.
I agree with kobe17 regarding the fact that if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott then the South would have been enfuriated which would also have contributed to the start of the Civil War.
I disagree with mikeb on the fact that if taney ruled in favor of Scott, then the country would not be as divided. If the Supreme court did support Scott (a slave), then the South would have been furious with the court and thus loose confidence faster in the government.
Oh and Mr. Wise, this is Aditya from period 3. and the lakers beat the pistons!!!
Dred Scott was a slave living in a free state Wisconsin for as long as 5 years.He sued for his freedom due to fact that it was illegal to be a slave in a free state. Although his argument was plausible he supreme court ruled that slaves are property and property could be taken anywhere and the court cannot take property away according to the fifth amendment. Also, Africans Americans could not attain citizenship so the court ruled against him. This decision brought more conflict aganist the North and the South hence making the Civil War less suprising. This really divided the union but also kept the South from secceding.
i agree with Lakes_117 that if Taney ruled in favor of Scott that there would have been a huge uproar.
Dred Scott was one of the most infamous slave's in 1850's. H was most notied for being a slave for a length of five years in Illinois who sued his master for taking him into free state while being held as a slave... the argument was based on the fifth amendment,which stated that privet property could not be siezed by government with out owner' consent. The supreme court Justice, agreed with Dred Scott and supported his argument by stating that the Missouri Compromise was considered unconstitutional. i believe that if Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott the southern states which held large amounts of slaves would sooner of later have faced a huge up-roar with rebeling slaves.....
Mikeb the information that youve stated is very detailed and helped me study..LOL..
JENNA PORRETTA much props with the research that youve come up with shows just how serious you take these assighnments...
Dred Scot was an African-American who lived on the free soil of Wisconsin for a long period of time with his master. His master took Scott along with him back to the slave state of Missouri when he was ordered by the army to go back, and later died. With the help of Abolitionist lawyers, Scott sued for his freedom claiming that he should be free considering he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in which the court stated that as a non-citizen, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court, and must remain a slave. The court’s decision affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. It declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. It violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Such effects brought the North to a furious stage because they thought the Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and eventually rule the nation itself. Consequently, the Dred Scott decision played a huge role in bringing the nation closer to Civil War by bringing the North and South to its utmost point of rivalry.
If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, it would have angered the South, still leading to the Civil War. The North and the South would have caused uproar to either of Taney’s decision. Therefore, there wasn’t really a decision to keep the North and the South at peace in preventing the Civil War. It was bound to happen because the two clearly had different motives and beliefs.
Dred scott was an african american slave that lived on free soil for five years. The dred scott desion was a lawsuit, pivotal in the history of the United States. It was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 it ruled the people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, they could never be citizens of the United States. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.If tanny had ruled in favor of scott,the war wouldnt have been delayed. it might have had a more rough beginning,but i believe it would have definitely not last longer than it did simply because of the Dred Scott case. the south would have also been in trouble because of Congressional support in the South was already going downhill and such a decision would have made the situation in the South worse leading to the Civil War.
In response to Jenna Porretta, I disagree that the Civil War would’ve been extended if Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott. The South would have been outraged because that would have defeated their plan of extending slavery, in which they have been fighting so hard for competing with the North’s plan to abolish it. So if anything, the war would have started earlier.
I agree with lakers_117 in which the situation of the South and Taney’s rule in favor of Scott would have altogether triggered the Civil War. Because the South had already lost Congressional support and now the Supreme Court’s support, they wouldn’t have much powerful support at all. Therefore, it makes sense for the southerners to be outraged knowing that they may have been defeated of acquiring more slave states.
Dred Scott was the Slave who sued for his freedom because his master lived with him in free states. The trial went all the way to the supreme court and he eventually lost the case because he wasn't actually a citizen of the U.S. and he was his slaveowners property. I think that if Scott had won the case the South would've went into an uproar and the civil war would've began a little sooner.
I disagree with all statements that said that had the Scott case been ruled the other way, the South would have been enfuriated. I disagree because under the law at the time, Scott should have been a free man. There would have been more satisfaction at the ruling had Scott been declared free. Taney turned a basic court proceeding over a political issue and sparked the beginning of the civil war.
Dred Scott was a black slave who lived with his master for five years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory; free soil. Abolitionists encouraged Scott to sue for freedom, but the Supreme Court ruled that as Dred Scott was a black slave and not a citizen, he could not sue in federal courts.
Chief Justice Taneyy took the Dred Scott decision even further. He argued that a slave was private property, and he or she could be taken into any territory and legally be held there in slavery. He and majority of the court reasoned that Scott suing for freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil was a violation of the Fifth Amendment: clearly forbade Congress to deprive people of their property without due process of law.
The Court used the Dred Scott Case as an opportunity to go even further on the bitter feelings of the south. The Court argued that the Missouri Compromise had been repealed three years earlier by the kansas-Nebraska Act, but its spirit was still venerated in the North. So the Court ruled that the Compromise of 1820 had been unconstitutional all along, for Congress had no power to ban slavery from the territories, regardless even of what the territorial legislatures themselves might want. All this further divided the North and South, driving for a Civil War.
If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Dred Scott, the South would have been infuriated. Although the southerners were victorious in the case, they were still angered by all this defiance and began to wonder howmuch longer they could remain joined to a section that refused to honor the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the constitutional compact that had established it. If Dred Scott had won, it would have been the final straw for the South, and Civil War would have begun sooner.
midgetsxrulexthexworld91 I agree that if Taney had ruled in favor Scott that the south would have seceeded sooner (or started a Civil War).
mikeb You have a good point when you say the north would not have been as angry if the Court ruled in favor of Scott, but the country would still have been divided, and the Civil War might have occurred sooner if you look at the south's perspective. The south would have been infuriated, and it would have been the last straw for them.
Dred Scott was a hired slave who was earlier considered free in the state of Illinois. However, his previous master had died so he was hired as a slave. Eventually, he attempted to buy his freedom, however, he was denied in his attempt. He thus sued for his right to freedom. Taney, who was the chief justice as that time, declared that people who were not citizens of the state could not sue. If Taney had agreed with Scott, the opposite of reality would have happened, which was angering the south and probably satisfying the north. However, this probably would not have prolonged or sped up the civil war.
In response to jenna porretta, I disagree that the civil war would have been prolonged since in reality, the north was angered and the south was satisfied, resulting in what really happened. The south would have been angered and the north would have been satisfied, still bringing to us the result that one side was angered and the other was treated better.
In response to gio1022, I agree that nothing would have come along sooner if Taney would have worked with Scott.
Dred Scott was a black slave that lived with his master in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for five years. He was supported by a few interests that were interested in his case. He sued for his freedom due to the fact that he had been living on free soil for a long time. Because Illinois was a free state, Scott was indeed illegible to be freed under its constitution. The Wisconsin Territory was also a free territory under the Missouri Compromise, which also gave him the right to be free.
The Supreme Court stated that because Scott was a black slave and not a citizen he couldn't sue in federal courts. The outcome was that because a slave was a private property, they could be taken into any territory and also legally held there in slavery. The Missouri compromise had been repealed 3 years earlier by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, therefore it could not be applied to his case. It was also ruled that Congress could not decide whether or not slavery was to be banned in territories. All these decisions were made by Chief Justice Roger Taney.
In my opinion, if Roger Taney ruled in favor of Scott, the civil war may have been brought upon even faster, due to the fact that Southerners would have believed that Taney was a traitor and that the slavery issue was still not resolved.
jenna porretta: i disagree due to the fact that the southerners still would have had more anger, increasing the want to seperate and start a war between them and the north. There wouldn't have been enough time for the slaves to all form cases like Scott's in order to free themselves before a war started.
the next black billionaire: i agree due to the fact that it would cause more havoc because Taney would've been seen as a traitor as well as the fact that nothing would have changed the slavery issues.
Dred Scott was a slave who resided in Winsconsin with his master for 5 years. He then sued for his freedom on the basis that while residing in a free territory he himself should have been free. Roger Taney a Supreme Court Judicial of the time had denied him his lawsuit and stated that he was property and not a citizen of the United States. He also stated that Congress could not choose the status of the states and territories (whether they be free or slave) seeing that it violated the Fifth Amendment with property rights. With this in play Taney also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and further voided its purpose. This further angered the North and created an even bigger rift between the two sections which would ultimately lead to civil war.
If Taney had ruled with Scott's favor he would have infuriated the South and would most likely have caused them to succeed further.
I disagree with kobe17 when he stated that it would postpone the conflict between the North and the South I believe it would however increase its momentum and bring it about quicker for the South would have reason to begin a war.
I agree with kobe17 that the war to come was inevitable no matter what side Taney would have favored due to both the North and the South's incapability to have won the case and have been happy with one another.
In 1857, a black slave sued for freedom on the basis of his long time residence on free soil. As simple as the legal case seemed, the Supreme Court decided to take it to another level when they ruled that because this man, Dred Scott, was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The Supreme Court then declared that all blacks, whether slaves or free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. They declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional so Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This shook and angered supporters of popular sovereignty. Southerners were happy but northerners were infuriated. The case strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party, and encouraged Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands. If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, the Southerners would have been the ones outraged by the outcome of the case. Even though the southerners were delighted with the victory and the Supreme Court’s rule that declared the Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional, they were still infuriated by all the defiance and started questioning remaining joined to a section that refused to honor the Supreme Court. If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, southerners would have brought up the issue with the compromise of 1820 in opposition to it. They would have been even more infuriated, pushing for an even earlier Civil War, which the north would have agreed to without hesitation. Tensions were already rising and the nation was already at the brink of a war, so either way, the Civil War was an inevitable outcome.
I disagree with mikeb’s statement that the country wouldn’t have been as divided and that the Civil War would have been delayed if taney had ruled in favor of Scott. I think the Civil War would have been sped up. The country was already somewhat divided, and the southerners would have been even more infuriated if scott had won the case.
I agree with Lakers117’s statement that ruling in favor of scott would have caused a big uproar in the south. Tensions were already rising and the south was already angry with the compromise of 1820. A decision like that would have made the south’s situation worse and inevitably led to the civil war.
Dred Scott was born in Virginia, making him a slave. When he was older he was sold to another family that later moved from a slave state (Missouri) to a free state (Illinois). When his master died, Scott sued Mrs. Emerson because he was now in a free state therefore he should be free. Since he had live in a free state for several years, he thought it was just. But when he went to the supreme court, they ruled against him because he was black. They said that beacuse he was born a slave he would stay a slave due to the belief that a slave was a man's property. Thus, this caused the Missouri Compromise to be declared unconstitutional. Then more problems arose from this. But if Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott the Civil War might have started sooner. This case would've angered the Southeners even more and thus there is a possibility that they might have won.
I agree with Lakers_17 because this case if ruled the opposite way could've started the civil war.
I disagree with jenna porreta about thatit would've prolonged the civil war. On the contrary, i believe that it would've started it or at least made it begin sooner.
The Dred Scott Decision was an event that exemplifies one of the rising conflicts between the South and the North. As a slave, Dred Scott's master brought Scott with him from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and Wisconsin, where he resided for 5 years as an independent black individual. The Army then ordered Scott's master bakc to Missouri where he then took Scott back with him to the slave state. Unfortunately for Scott, his master died, leaving him with no freedom. Scott later, with the help of abolitionist lawyers, sued for the his freedom in the court. Scott claimed that since he lived on free soil for a long time, he should have the right to remain emancipated. This trial became so critical that it was brought upon the United States Supreme Court with the hands of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney ruled that since African Americans were not entitled as slaves, Scott had no right to sue in the Court; he therefore cannot achieve his freedom. Taney also asserted that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 violated the 5th Amendment because "Congress cannot deprive persons of their property without due process of law." As a result, an aggravated North and a content South came about. President Lincoln even disapproved of the decision and even made speeches conveying words against the decision.
One way or another, Taney's decision would have inflicted anger to either both the North or the South. In this case, the ruling aroused anger in the North because they believed that the ruling was another way the South wanted to expand its slavery territories. But, if Taney did side with Scott, giving him his freedom, the South would also throw a fit. Even though both instances may differ in which side would be angered, both decisions would have led up to the Civil War. When one side is not happy, they revolt against the other.
MizChinkyEyez, I agree with her agreeing with midgetsxrulexthexworld91. I agree with the fact that if the South was betrayed by Taney, their feelings for secession would have even been more aroused. The South would have probably felt betrayed by Taney and they would have felt more displaced in the Union.
In response to kobe17's comment, I disagree with the fact that if Taney ruled in favor of Scott, the Civil War would have been postponed. I do agree, however, that if such a decision was made, both South and North would have grew much distant with one another. But such distance between the North and the South was the primary reason why there was so much tension between the two. THis tension brought about the Civil War, not postponing it.
If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott then i beleive there would have been much more controversy among the states. With this it would have started the Civil War a bit earlier then it had becuase the war was already on the verge of beggining, this action would have just caused it to occur sooner
so about dred scott... he was a slave from illinois but then he moved with his master to the wisconsin territory. basically he sued for freedom because he was a slave in a free state and had been there for a good amount of time. so the chief justice at the time, roger taney, based his case on ruling for scott would be an intrusion according to the fifth amendment and ruling for his master would be due to constitutional rights, so he ruled in favor of scott's master. on the other hand, if taney had ruled for scott there would be a very different outcome. first off, other slaves would try to do the same following the precedent set by scott. second off, this would make the north and south even more distant than they already were. also, beacause of this disruption, it would lead to an earlier civil war.
midgetsxrulexthexworld91: i agree on the idea that if taney had ruled for scott, the south would have seceeded sooner.
the next black billionaire: i agree with sam that the uproar also wouldve been due to taney betraying the whites.
The Dred Scott Decision was about an african-american slave named Dred Scott. He he lived with his master in the free state of illinois for a long period of time, up until the army ordered his master to go back to missouri, a slave state. There, his master died. He was helped by abolitionist lawyers in order to become a free black. The court declared that "no slave or decsendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or had ever been a U.S. citizen." (www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm) since scott was considered a non-citizen of the U.S., he had no rights and had to remain a slave. This case was significant because Scott should have been considered a free slave but he wasn't and he wasn't being given any rights. If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, i think that it would have been a huge deal. maybe people would have started seeing blacks as equals now that they would be able to have the same rights as any white u.s. citizen. i also believe that we would have abolished slavery as a whole nation much sooner than we actually did.
I agree with midgetsxrulexthexworld91 because we both basically think the same thing about what would have happened if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott.
i also agree with noshan nerw when he said that if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, there might've been and uproar and the civil war might've started sooner. i think that this is a definite possibility of what could have happened.
The Dred Scott v. Taney case of 1857 was where a slave named Dred Scott, sued his master for his freedom. His intentions were based on the fact that he had lived in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, for a long period of time with his master. In reaction the Supreme Court denied his case because he was a black slave, he wasn’t a citizen and he was not aloud to sue in federal court. However, the majority decided to further the case, lead by Chief Justice Taney. The ruling the case was that his subpoena was against the Fifth Amendment; thus concluding that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. In addition the South was pleased by this unexpected victory, and the North was infuriated with the decision. In my opinion if the case was ruled in the favor of Scott the North would have been pleased and the South would have probably succeeded from the Union earlier than it had done in history. Also, it would have concluded that the Missouri Compromise was constitutional and would have ruled that Kansas and Nebraska Act was unconstitutional and that they would have to follow the 36 30 line.
I agree with midgetsXruleXtheXworld91 in which i too believe that the south would have secceded earlier than what is written in history.
I disagree with mikeb because i believe that if Tanny ruled in favor of Scott, the civil war would have occured earlier, in which the south would have secceded earlier thus causing disunion within the U.S.
The Dred Scott Decision was a Supreme COurt case. This case involved a slave, Dred Scott, who had been a resident of a free state for five years under his master. Scott was sueing Mrs. Emerson for his freedom and his family's freedom, but he failed due to the Chief Justice Roger Taney's ruling that a slave was a person's property and as property, a slave could be taken anywhere the master wanted and could not be taken away by the government according to the Fifth Amendment. the Supreme Court also announced its view on the Missouri Compromise, which they felt was unconstitutional.
I believe that if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, that many other slaves who were in a similar position would have had an escape avenue presented to them. A loophole in the system that the slaves could take advantage of to gain their freedom. It would also have been a decision in favor of the abolitionists. I believe it would've been an encouragement to the abolitionists and perhaps fueled the Civil War effort to early fruition.
Dred Scott was a slave. He lived in Illinois, a free state, for five years. Then Scott sued for his freedom. However, the chief justice Roger Tanny ruled in favor of Scott's master. He ruled that Dred Scott was a slave, not a citzen. Therefore, he could sue anyone. If Tanny had ruled in Scott's favor, things would progressed quicker. I think the Civil War would have broke out quickly after this ruling. ~Leah Blackburn
I strongly disagree with Jenna's comment, saying the Dred Scott case would have prolonged the Civil War.
I agree with Alan's comment refering to why Dred Scott lost the case. Being that he was not a citizen.
Dred Scott was a black slave who had been residing with his master in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory for a long period of time. However, Dred Scott made an attempt to sue for his freedom but in the end was not successful. The Supreme Court, ruled by Chief Justice Taney at this time, denied that he would be granted freedom since he was a private property slave and not officially considered to be as a United States citizen. However, the fifth amendment stated that Congress could not take someone’s property without due process. Furthermore, the court said that the Missouri Compromise was obsolete to the Kansas-Nebraska act and that slavery was not opt to be banned from the territories. This was a surprising victory for the southerners and other slave supporters. However, this was a devastating blow to the northerners which foreshadowed further strenuous tension between the north and the south.
If the ruling had been in favor of Scott then I believe that the Missouri Compromise would then have to be upheld by Kansas and Nebraska, re-establishing the 36 30 line of slavery. I also believe that tension would not have been as intense as it was. The south was actually surprised that this ruling had happened so if the case was in favor for Scott then the south would not have been as enraged as the north was when the ruling was against Scott. Thus, the tension would not have been intense since it was not against the ideal expectance of the outcome of this particular case
I disagree with Gio1022's statement saying that Civil War would have come earlier because the ^above^ statement of mine that says that tenstions would have be substatially less than it was when the ruling was final against Scott.
I agree with lil chris in his statement that says that Kansas and Nebraska would have had to follow the Missouri Compromise's guidlines and they would have to re-establish the 36 30 line.
i agree with Kobe17 that the slaves would've taken advantage of the ruling of the Dred Scott Decision to gain their own freedom, however i disagree that this issue would've postponed the civil war, but rather hastened it.
I also agree with marcus (the next black billionaire) that the case furthered and expanded the north's opposition to slavery and at the same time igniting a strong southern view on how slavery should remain firmly entrenched in the U.S.
Dred Scott lived in illinois for 5 years as a slave. Then something happened to his master and he went to live in a free state for many years. Based on this he tried suing for his freedom. The case made it all the way to the supreme court where his claim was denied on the basis that since he was someone elses property the Supreme court had no right to free him under the 5th amendment. Then the supreme court took it a step further by declaring that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. I believe that if the court had ruled in favor of Scott that hot-headed northern abolitionists might have cooled down a bit. C.C.
I agree with mikeb when he infers that if the Supreme court would have ruled in favor of Scott that it might have delayed the Civil War because northerners would feel content for a while about slavery being abolished.
I disagree with The Next Black Billionaire when he says that slavery wouldnt have been affected if the Supreme court had ruled in favor of Scott because it would have changed views of slavery in both the North and the South. The North would have proof that slavery was illegal and the South would have to figure out a way to justify slavery.
Mr. Wise this is SAM......Dred Scott was a slave who moved out of his residence in the south and lived in free teritories in the North for many years. When he returned Emersons widow, told Dred Scott that he was still a slave. Dred Scott disagreed and sued. After long court orders and trials he was in fact still a slave. The south would have been in uproar and the civil war might have begun earlier if Taney had ruled in favor of scott.
I agree NOSHAN NERW because he thinks that the civil war would have begun earlier also.
I disaggree with mikeb because he belives that the civil war would have been delayed.
In the Dred Scott case, a enslaved black attempted to sue his master for his freedom after his master moved him to a free state. The case went all the way to the supreme court. The sumpreme court ruling was a major victory for the south, because not only did the judge deny Scott's freedom, he ruled that slaves are property and whatever the owners did with their property was up to them, he also ruled taht slaves were not and could never become citizens and also he decided that the supreme court could not tell terrotories if they could have slaves or not. This deceision caused uproar and contributed to the civil war. If Taney would have ruled in favor of scott, the southd would have gotten angry andtried to distance itself from the union. I think that at this point in history the civil war was unavoidable. i agree with midgetsxrulexthexworld91 because i also think the south would have succeded sooner. I strongly disagree with mikeb because nothing would haver delayed the civil war
it was a lawsuit, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The decision for the court was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney.
The decision sided with border ruffians in the Bleeding Kansas dispute who were afraid a free Kansas would be a haven for runaway slaves from Missouri. It enraged abolitionists.
The parts of this decision dealing with the citizenship and rights of African-Americans were explicitly overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
i think if Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Dred Scott it would have led to an earlier civil war
In the Dred Scott court case, Dred Scott was hoping to gain his freedom. When the Supreme Court and the chief justice heard this, they did not agree with it. Their decision was to say to him that he is a personal property and that he will not be able to be a free person. They were kind of saying once a slave, always a slave. In this case, this would be extremely unfair. According to the Fifth Amendment, property being owned by an owner could be placed anywhere and the government could not take that property away.
Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in a free state for many years. He sued for his freedom, being that he was on free soil. The Supreme Court said that because Scott was black, he wasn't an actual citizen and had no right to sue. They then declared that all black slaves, free or not, were not allowed to become citizens of the United States.The Civil War was inevitable because tensions were already previously rising and continued to rise.
I agree with Marissa Washington that Scott wanted to have his freedom, after his master moved him to a free state. This is understandable because if I were a slave and my master moved me to a free state, I too would sue my master for my freedom.
I disagree with Jenna Poretta because I feel that if Taney were to be on the side of Scott that would've made more tensions rise. Thus, speeding up the Civil War. No matter what, it was inevitable.
I agree with Lakers17 because they also say that it would have cause an uproar in the South, and like i've previously stated, tensions were already rising. So again, the Civil War was inevitable.
I agree with brownie-pants because the fifth amendment did state the personal property law. Dred Scott was the personal property of his master, which didn't give him the right to sue his master.
Dred Scott was a slave that resided in Wisconsin for five years with his master. After, he tried to sued for his freedom since Wisconsin was a free state. However, this "Dred Scott-Decision" was decided by saying that Dred Scott was NOT a U.S. citizen and therefore could not take any legal action. Furthermore, the fact that any owner could take his slave anywhere flatly contradicted the Missouri Compromise since it stated that slavery could be lie in that territory. Simply, there could be slavery anywhere as long as the master takes them there, raising controversial issues among the Free-Soilers, abolitionists, and pro-southerns.
Dred scott was a slave to dr.john emerson .When his owner migrated to the free state of Illinois from the slave state of Missouri, Dred Scott was taken along with his master. They then migrated to the free territory of Wisconsin. Scott lived on free land for a long period of time.In 1847 when his master died, Scott, aided by abolitionist lawyers, tried to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free because he lived on free land for a long period of time. ten years later,in March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom. Taney -- a large supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
i think that the signifigance of this court case is that it caused tensions between the North and the South to grown.It also caused Laws regarding slavery to be passed at local, state, and national levels that caused much dissension between the two regions of the country.i also believe that if Tanny ruled in favor of Scott it would have just further angered the south and perhaps led to an even earlier civil war.
I disagree with mikeb on the fact that if taney ruled in favor of Scott, then the country would not be as divided, because if he had ruled for scott then wouldnt the south become angry that slaves had the chance to be free.
i would have to say that i agree with lakers_117 becuaseif Tanny taken scott's side the the south would be angry and take more action into doing somehting
I agree with man'o'steel's comment about the part mentioned about Chief Taney's ruling of the Missouri Compromise being unconstitutional. This puts the North in a pickle jar, since slavery could be allowed anywhere if the masters take them there, giving the South a very large unfair advantage.
I agree with lakers_117 because he mentioned the Congress siding with the South, which corners the North. This leaves the North in a fearful and stressful state. In effect, the North must resort to other measures in order to gain their part of this sectional country.
Also because he is cool and I'm history-day partner.
The Dred Scott Decision was decided in 1857 by the Supreme Court that Dred Scott could not sue his master for his freedom and that no slave was allowed constitutional rights or to become a U.S Citizen. The Dred Scott decision also answered the question as to whether Congress had the right to exlude slavery in any territory in which the people wanted it. The state of Illionis during this time was considered a free state, where Scott resided with his master. After Scott's master died he went on to work as a hired slave and asked to buy his and his wifes freedom from her master. Her master refused and Scott filed a lawsuit in which the Supreme Court resided over. Cheif Justice Taney from the slave state of Maryland presided over the case and ruled against Scott. The court stated that a slave was "privately owned property" and that a master could be taken in to ANY territory and still be held as a slave. The reasoning was that of the Fifth Amendment which forbade Congress to deprive people of their property without due process. The supreme court also said that the Missouri Compromise had been repealed and that the Compromise of 1830 had been unconstitutional and that Congress could not ban slavery from a territory regardless of what the terrirtorial legislatures wanted. If Taney had in fact ruled in favor of Scott then the slavery issue would have taken an entirely different turn. IT would have angered the South much more and possibly started the Civil War earlier or it would have delayed it and helped the abolitionists in their cause to end slavery.
The Next Black Billionaire I disagree with what you said about the concept of slavery notbeing affected. I believe that other slaves in the free-soil states would have tired to sue for their freedom as well if Taney had sided with Scott.
Jenna I disagree that the Civil War would have been prolonged. I believe that this would have pushed the South too far too fast and that they would have taken action then rather than later. Seeing as how cotton is their largest source of profit and that they need slaves to collect it, if Taney had sided with Scott than more slaves would have been filled with a sense of empowerment and peobably rebelled or fought for their freedom from their masters.
The outcome of the Dred Scott decision was that he was not granted his freedom because he was still considered a slave and come not become an U.S. citizen. This case was significant because it displayed the flaws of the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment prohibited Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law. With this, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 became unconstitutional because prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase and since Scott was sent to Wisconsin which was declared free territory with this act the courts decision was unfair. If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott slavery would have been contained within the limits of the Missouri Compromise and the Civil War might have never happened. Possibly with this decision the relations between the North and the South might have been divided into separate mini territories in which they would be able to govern themselves as slavery and non-slavery territories.
Dred Scott Decision was a cases that had dictated any people of African heritage that had come to the US. The decision was a push to expand slavery, many believed. Dred Scott's master had died and he was trying to gain his freedom in court. His foundation on winning the case was that he was living on free land for a long time. However, not being a citizen without rights meant he really had no right to freedom. THerefore the ruling was that he must remain a slave.
In my opinion, if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, the territories would have less differences. This means that the North and South could have gotten along better without as many difference which could have played a majoy part in the time of the Civil War.
Dred Scott was a free slave who tried to sue for his freedom after he was free for five years. Unfortunately, the chief justice considered him property since slaves were property and couldn't grant him freedom because of its contradiction with the fifth amendment. IF Tanny would have ruled in favor of Dred Scott, the civil war could have been prolonged. Additionally, the abolitionists of the North would not have been so raged and would have caused less division between the Union.
The Dred Scott Decision was a lawsuit decided upon the Supreme Court in 1857. It ruled that any African descent people, either free or slaves, could never become citizens of the United States, and that Congress possessed no right to prohibit slavery in any federal territory. Situated in Illinois, Dred Scott was a slave for three years there while his 'master' was in the US Army. Illinois was a free state, and he was freed. After his master 'died', Scott was employed as a hired slave. Gradually, Scott asked to buy his and his wife's freedom. The 'master' wife denied his proposition, so Scott sued for his freedom that he was entitled by living in the free state. If Tanny hadn't ruled in favor of Scott, the North wouldn't have been in as much turmoil and anger , and maybe the country would not be completely sectionalized and divided. This would then cause the delay of the Civil War.
Dred Scott was a slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Wisconsin, which was then part of the Louisiana Purchase. The court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that Scott could not therefore bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's sojourn outside of Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.
The Dred Scott Decision was about a slave named Dred Scott in Illinois who sued for his freedom. Then Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the court stated that Dred Scott could not sue because he wasn't a citizen. Taney also stated that Congress did not have the right to decide what territories would be pro slavery or antislavery. I believe if Taney ruled over in this decision then the country wouldn't have split in half which caused tension for the civil war.
77 comments:
Dred Scott was a slave that had lived in a free state for 5 years. He tried to sue for his freedom but cheif justice determined since he was a slave he was property. Property could be taken anywhere by its owner and the government could not seize property based on the 5th admendment.I think that if Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott the south would have succeded sooner.
M.P.H.
The Dred Scott Decision was a lawsuit decided by the Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled that any people of African descent, whether free or slaves, could never become citizens of the United States, and Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in any federal territory. Dred Scott was a slave lived in Illinois for three years while his "master" was in the US Army. Since he was in Illinois, it would be considered a free state, and he was freed. After his "master" died, Scott worked as a hired slave. Eventually, Scott asked to buy his and his wife's freedom. The "master" wife refused, so Scott sued for his freedom since he was in a free state, he was legally free. If Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott, the north would not have been in anger as much, and maybe the country wouldn't have been as divided, thus delaying a Civil War for a brief period of time.
RESEARCH:In 1834, Dred Scott, a black slave, personal servant to Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. army surgeon, was taken by his master from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a free state, and thence to Fort Snelling (now in Minnesota) in Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was prohibited by the Missouri Compromise. There he married before returning with Dr. Emerson to Missouri in 1838. After Emerson's death, Scott sued (1846) Emerson's widow for freedom for himself and his family (he had two children) on the ground that residence in a free state and then in a free territory had ended his bondage. He won his suit before a lower court in St. Louis, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision (thus reversing its own precedents). Scott's lawyers then maneuvered the case into the federal courts. Since J. F. A. Sanford, Mrs. Emerson's brother, was the legal administrator of her property and a resident ofNew York, the federal court accepted jurisdiction for the case on the basis of diversity of state citizenship. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the Supreme Court. In Feb., 1857, the court decided in conference to avoid completely the question of the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise and to rule against Scott on the ground that under Missouri law as now interpreted by the supreme court of that state he remained a slave despite his previous residence in free territory. However, when it became known that two antislavery justices, John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis, planned to write dissenting opinions vigorously upholding the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise (which had, in fact, been voided by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854), the court's Southern members, constituting the majority, decided to consider the whole question of federal power over slavery in the territories. They decided in the case of Scott v. Sandford (the name was misspelled in the formal reports) that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, and Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the court's opinion that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Three of the justices also held that a black “whose ancestors were … sold as slaves” was not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. The court's verdict further inflamed the sectional controversy between North and South and was roundly denounced by the growing antislavery group in the North.
SOURCE:http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0816089.html
MY OPINION:If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott,Im sure the civil war wouldve been prolonged.The North wouldve looked down upon it because im sure the south wouldve craved liberation earlier.More slaves wouldve followed Scott's choices to possibly get emancipation.
The decision was a culmination of what many at that time considered a push to expand slavery. The expansion of the territories and resulting admission of new states meant that the longstanding Missouri Compromise would cause the loss of political power in the North as many of the new states would be admitted as slave states. Thus, Democratic party politicians sought repeal of the Missouri Compromise and were finally successful in 1854 with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which naturally ended the "compromise." This act permitted each newly admitted state south of the 40th parallel to decide whether to be a slave state or free state. Now, with Dred Scott, the Supreme Court under Taney sought to permit the unhindered expansion of slavery into the territories.
Although Taney believed that the decision would settle the slavery question once and for all, it produced the opposite result. It strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party on sectional lines, encouraged secessionist elements among Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands, and strengthened the Republican Party.
The decision in general was that african americans and descents of those were not considered american citizens. This was pretty the last straw for the North thus being anohter one of the major events leading to the civil war.
If Taney had ruled in favor, it would have caused more havoc and he probably be known as a traitor to the people in the south. However, I don't think the concept of slavery would be affected, but what would happen after they are freed would be different.
In response to Miranda's post I agree with your summary in general, however, I do believe she could have gone into more detail and also explain her point of view a tad bit better.
In response to Jenna's response, I just have a simple wuestion to ask, of course she doesn't have to respond b/c she will probably never read this but if she does the question; in your opinion, what do you think will cause the civil war if the dred v sanford had not happened.
---Marcus Jones Period 3
***Also I was absent friday (11/16/07) b/c I had to go to Las Vegas for a wedding.
Dred Scott was a slave that lived in Illinois with his master. They then moved to Wisconsin Territory, where Scott married (a legal contract which was prohibited in the south). In 1846, Dred Scott sued for his freedom. Roger Taney, the Chief Justice, ruled against Scott, stating that he was not a citizen of the United States and therefore couldn't sue. However, he went beyond this ruling. He added that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had been unconstitutional since Congress could not decide on the issue of slavery in a territory, regardless of popular sovereignty. The outcome of the case created an inflamed wave of anger in the abolitionists, but delighted many southern slaveowners. If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, I have no doubt that the southern "fire eaters" would have been enraged in such a manner that they would have attempted to commence the Civil War early. Whether or not the whole southern region would have decided to seceed is unknown, however.
-Giovanna B. :D
I disagree with Jenna Porretta on her statement that the Civil War would have been prolonged if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott. Perhaps it would have had a more abrupt beginning, but it would definitely not last longer than it did simply because of the Dred Scott case.
Dred Scott was a slave who lived in the state of Illinois who sued for his freedom. The decision by Taney of the Supreme Court was that he was not a citizen and therefore couldn't sue. The court also stated that the Congress didn't have the right to decide whether a territory should be non slave, or slave (i.e. the Missouri Compromise). During this time period, the nation was clearly split. If Taney were to change his decision, the Civil War would have initated much earlier. I'm not sure that the South would quite seceed, but it would push them to the limit. *Alan Nguyen P.1
I strongly disagree with Jenna's comment saying that the Civil War would be prolonged because all evidence shows that the nation was on the brink of civil war.
The Dred Scott case is probably one of the more famous cases in American history which protains to the issue of slavery and man's rights. Dred Scott was a slave who had moved to Illinois with his master and resided there for five years. Scott sued for his freedom based on the fact that he was in a free state and lived their for a substantial amount of time. The judge residing over the case, chief justice Roger Tanny, ruled in favor of he master based on constitutional rights and ruling in favor of Scott would be an intrusion on the fifth admendment right.
It Tanny ruled in favor of Scott i think this would have just further angered the south and perhaps led to an even earlier civil war. If the actual civil war wouldn't have erupt from this decision im sure a war of words between the north and south would have. Also the times of Franklin and jefferson and how to interpret the constitution would have come up with out a doubt.
Karan Oberoi
Period 1
Dred Scott was a slave serving a U.S. Navy officer. When his owner migrated to the free state of Illinois from the slave state of Missouri, Dred Scott was taken along with his master. They then migrated to the free territory of Wisconsin. Scott lived on free land for a long period of time. When his master died, Scott, aided by abolitionist lawyers, tried to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free because he lived on free land for a long period of time. The court, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled against Scott declaring that no slave or a descendent of a slave could be a citizen or ever had been a citizen in the past. Therefore, Scott could not sue in a federal court for he was not a citizen and had no rights, so he must remain a slave. The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. The Court declared it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law. The Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.
In my opinion, if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, then the North and South would not have grown distant, thus postponing the Civil War. Also, following Scott’s precedent, other slaves would try to get emancipated causing uproar in the South, eventually generating a war between the North and South. Hence, the Civil War was inevitable and would come about due to one outcome or another.
I agree with jenna porretta because i also think that the war would have been delayed a little because if not the Dred Scott decision, any other issue concerning slavery would have instigated the North and South to fight.
I disagree with mikeb who stated that the country wouldn't have been as divided. I disagree because if Taney favored Scott, wouldn't that anger the South?
Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in the free state of Wisconsin for 5 years with his master. Therefore, he tried to sue for his freedom citing the fact that it was illegal for him to remain a slave in a free state. However, when his case was taken to the Supreme Court, Roger Taney ruled that Scott was not a citizen of the United States due to the fact that he was a slave. In addition, Taney declared that Congress could not stop slavery in the territories as it violated the fifth amendment of property rights. The Supreme Court ruled that slaves were property and could therefore be taken anywhere with their masters. Also, this meant that the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional and void. This decision enfuriated the North and made the rift between North and South even bigger and put the two on a direct course to Civil War.
If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, it would have caused a big uproar in the South. Congressional support in the South was already going downhill and such a decision would have surely made the situation in the South worse thus leading to the Civil War.
I agree with kobe17 regarding the fact that if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott then the South would have been enfuriated which would also have contributed to the start of the Civil War.
I disagree with mikeb on the fact that if taney ruled in favor of Scott, then the country would not be as divided. If the Supreme court did support Scott (a slave), then the South would have been furious with the court and thus loose confidence faster in the government.
Oh and Mr. Wise, this is Aditya from period 3. and the lakers beat the pistons!!!
Dred Scott was a slave living in a free state Wisconsin for as long as 5 years.He sued for his freedom due to fact that it was illegal to be a slave in a free state. Although his argument was plausible he supreme court ruled that slaves are property and property could be taken anywhere and the court cannot take property away according to the fifth amendment. Also, Africans Americans could not attain citizenship so the court ruled against him. This decision brought more conflict aganist the North and the South hence making the Civil War less suprising. This really divided the union but also kept the South from secceding.
i agree with Lakes_117 that if Taney ruled in favor of Scott that there would have been a huge uproar.
Nikhila Kethireddy
per.1
Dred Scott was one of the most infamous slave's in 1850's. H was most notied for being a slave for a length of five years in Illinois who sued his master for taking him into free state while being held as a slave... the argument was based on the fifth amendment,which stated that privet property could not be siezed by government with out owner' consent. The supreme court Justice, agreed with Dred Scott and supported his argument by stating that the Missouri Compromise was considered unconstitutional.
i believe that if Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott the southern states which held large amounts of slaves would sooner of later have faced a huge up-roar with rebeling slaves.....
Mikeb the information that youve stated is very detailed and helped me study..LOL..
JENNA PORRETTA much props with the research that youve come up with shows just how serious you take these assighnments...
*Jessica Manzo
per.3
Dred Scot was an African-American who lived on the free soil of Wisconsin for a long period of time with his master. His master took Scott along with him back to the slave state of Missouri when he was ordered by the army to go back, and later died. With the help of Abolitionist lawyers, Scott sued for his freedom claiming that he should be free considering he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in which the court stated that as a non-citizen, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court, and must remain a slave. The court’s decision affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. It declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. It violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Such effects brought the North to a furious stage because they thought the Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and eventually rule the nation itself. Consequently, the Dred Scott decision played a huge role in bringing the nation closer to Civil War by bringing the North and South to its utmost point of rivalry.
If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, it would have angered the South, still leading to the Civil War. The North and the South would have caused uproar to either of Taney’s decision. Therefore, there wasn’t really a decision to keep the North and the South at peace in preventing the Civil War. It was bound to happen because the two clearly had different motives and beliefs.
Dred scott was an african american slave that lived on free soil for five years. The dred scott desion was a lawsuit, pivotal in the history of the United States. It was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 it ruled the people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, they could never be citizens of the United States. Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.If tanny had ruled in favor of scott,the war wouldnt have been delayed. it might have had a more rough beginning,but i believe it would have definitely not last longer than it did simply because of the Dred Scott case. the south would have also been in trouble because of Congressional support in the South was already going downhill and such a decision would have made the situation in the South worse leading to the Civil War.
In response to Jenna Porretta, I disagree that the Civil War would’ve been extended if Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott. The South would have been outraged because that would have defeated their plan of extending slavery, in which they have been fighting so hard for competing with the North’s plan to abolish it. So if anything, the war would have started earlier.
I agree with lakers_117 in which the situation of the South and Taney’s rule in favor of Scott would have altogether triggered the Civil War. Because the South had already lost Congressional support and now the Supreme Court’s support, they wouldn’t have much powerful support at all. Therefore, it makes sense for the southerners to be outraged knowing that they may have been defeated of acquiring more slave states.
Victoria Hoang
Period 3
Dred Scott was the Slave who sued for his freedom because his master lived with him in free states. The trial went all the way to the supreme court and he eventually lost the case because he wasn't actually a citizen of the U.S. and he was his slaveowners property.
I think that if Scott had won the case the South would've went into an uproar and the civil war would've began a little sooner.
Nahson Wren
I disagree with all statements that said that had the Scott case been ruled the other way, the South would have been enfuriated. I disagree because under the law at the time, Scott should have been a free man. There would have been more satisfaction at the ruling had Scott been declared free. Taney turned a basic court proceeding over a political issue and sparked the beginning of the civil war.
Dred Scott was a black slave who lived with his master for five years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory; free soil. Abolitionists encouraged Scott to sue for freedom, but the Supreme Court ruled that as Dred Scott was a black slave and not a citizen, he could not sue in federal courts.
Chief Justice Taneyy took the Dred Scott decision even further. He argued that a slave was private property, and he or she could be taken into any territory and legally be held there in slavery. He and majority of the court reasoned that Scott suing for freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil was a violation of the Fifth Amendment: clearly forbade Congress to deprive people of their property without due process of law.
The Court used the Dred Scott Case as an opportunity to go even further on the bitter feelings of the south. The Court argued that the Missouri Compromise had been repealed three years earlier by the kansas-Nebraska Act, but its spirit was still venerated in the North. So the Court ruled that the Compromise of 1820 had been unconstitutional all along, for Congress had no power to ban slavery from the territories, regardless even of what the territorial legislatures themselves might want. All this further divided the North and South, driving for a Civil War.
If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Dred Scott, the South would have been infuriated. Although the southerners were victorious in the case, they were still angered by all this defiance and began to wonder howmuch longer they could remain joined to a section that refused to honor the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the constitutional compact that had established it. If Dred Scott had won, it would have been the final straw for the South, and Civil War would have begun sooner.
Kasey Choi
period 2
midgetsxrulexthexworld91
I agree that if Taney had ruled in favor Scott that the south would have seceeded sooner (or started a Civil War).
mikeb
You have a good point when you say the north would not have been as angry if the Court ruled in favor of Scott, but the country would still have been divided, and the Civil War might have occurred sooner if you look at the south's perspective. The south would have been infuriated, and it would have been the last straw for them.
Dred Scott was a hired slave who was earlier considered free in the state of Illinois. However, his previous master had died so he was hired as a slave. Eventually, he attempted to buy his freedom, however, he was denied in his attempt. He thus sued for his right to freedom. Taney, who was the chief justice as that time, declared that people who were not citizens of the state could not sue. If Taney had agreed with Scott, the opposite of reality would have happened, which was angering the south and probably satisfying the north. However, this probably would not have prolonged or sped up the civil war.
In response to jenna porretta, I disagree that the civil war would have been prolonged since in reality, the north was angered and the south was satisfied, resulting in what really happened. The south would have been angered and the north would have been satisfied, still bringing to us the result that one side was angered and the other was treated better.
In response to gio1022, I agree that nothing would have come along sooner if Taney would have worked with Scott.
Dred Scott was a black slave that lived with his master in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for five years. He was supported by a few interests that were interested in his case. He sued for his freedom due to the fact that he had been living on free soil for a long time. Because Illinois was a free state, Scott was indeed illegible to be freed under its constitution. The Wisconsin Territory was also a free territory under the Missouri Compromise, which also gave him the right to be free.
The Supreme Court stated that because Scott was a black slave and not a citizen he couldn't sue in federal courts. The outcome was that because a slave was a private property, they could be taken into any territory and also legally held there in slavery. The Missouri compromise had been repealed 3 years earlier by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, therefore it could not be applied to his case. It was also ruled that Congress could not decide whether or not slavery was to be banned in territories. All these decisions were made by Chief Justice Roger Taney.
In my opinion, if Roger Taney ruled in favor of Scott, the civil war may have been brought upon even faster, due to the fact that Southerners would have believed that Taney was a traitor and that the slavery issue was still not resolved.
jenna porretta:
i disagree due to the fact that the southerners still would have had more anger, increasing the want to seperate and start a war between them and the north. There wouldn't have been enough time for the slaves to all form cases like Scott's in order to free themselves before a war started.
the next black billionaire:
i agree due to the fact that it would cause more havoc because Taney would've been seen as a traitor as well as the fact that nothing would have changed the slavery issues.
Arabella layugan
Period 1
Dred Scott was a slave who resided in Winsconsin with his master for 5 years. He then sued for his freedom on the basis that while residing in a free territory he himself should have been free. Roger Taney a Supreme Court Judicial of the time had denied him his lawsuit and stated that he was property and not a citizen of the United States. He also stated that Congress could not choose the status of the states and territories (whether they be free or slave) seeing that it violated the Fifth Amendment with property rights. With this in play Taney also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and further voided its purpose. This further angered the North and created an even bigger rift between the two sections which would ultimately lead to civil war.
If Taney had ruled with Scott's favor he would have infuriated the South and would most likely have caused them to succeed further.
I disagree with kobe17 when he stated that it would postpone the conflict between the North and the South I believe it would however increase its momentum and bring it about quicker for the South would have reason to begin a war.
I agree with kobe17 that the war to come was inevitable no matter what side Taney would have favored due to both the North and the South's incapability to have won the case and have been happy with one another.
This is Dylan Russell period 3.
In 1857, a black slave sued for freedom on the basis of his long time residence on free soil. As simple as the legal case seemed, the Supreme Court decided to take it to another level when they ruled that because this man, Dred Scott, was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The Supreme Court then declared that all blacks, whether slaves or free, were not and could never become citizens of the United States. They declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional so Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. This shook and angered supporters of popular sovereignty. Southerners were happy but northerners were infuriated. The case strengthened the opposition to slavery in the North, divided the Democratic Party, and encouraged Southern supporters of slavery to make even bolder demands. If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, the Southerners would have been the ones outraged by the outcome of the case. Even though the southerners were delighted with the victory and the Supreme Court’s rule that declared the Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional, they were still infuriated by all the defiance and started questioning remaining joined to a section that refused to honor the Supreme Court. If Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, southerners would have brought up the issue with the compromise of 1820 in opposition to it. They would have been even more infuriated, pushing for an even earlier Civil War, which the north would have agreed to without hesitation. Tensions were already rising and the nation was already at the brink of a war, so either way, the Civil War was an inevitable outcome.
I disagree with mikeb’s statement that the country wouldn’t have been as divided and that the Civil War would have been delayed if taney had ruled in favor of Scott. I think the Civil War would have been sped up. The country was already somewhat divided, and the southerners would have been even more infuriated if scott had won the case.
I agree with Lakers117’s statement that ruling in favor of scott would have caused a big uproar in the south. Tensions were already rising and the south was already angry with the compromise of 1820. A decision like that would have made the south’s situation worse and inevitably led to the civil war.
christine wang
period 3
Dred Scott was born in Virginia, making him a slave. When he was older he was sold to another family that later moved from a slave state (Missouri) to a free state (Illinois). When his master died, Scott sued Mrs. Emerson because he was now in a free state therefore he should be free. Since he had live in a free state for several years, he thought it was just. But when he went to the supreme court, they ruled against him because he was black. They said that beacuse he was born a slave he would stay a slave due to the belief that a slave was a man's property. Thus, this caused the Missouri Compromise to be declared unconstitutional. Then more problems arose from this. But if Tanny had ruled in favor of Scott the Civil War might have started sooner. This case would've angered the Southeners even more and thus there is a possibility that they might have won.
Norma Garcia
period 2
I agree with Lakers_17 because this case if ruled the opposite way could've started the civil war.
I disagree with jenna porreta about thatit would've prolonged the civil war. On the contrary, i believe that it would've started it or at least made it begin sooner.
Allison Santos
Period 1
The Dred Scott Decision was an event that exemplifies one of the rising conflicts between the South and the North. As a slave, Dred Scott's master brought Scott with him from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and Wisconsin, where he resided for 5 years as an independent black individual. The Army then ordered Scott's master bakc to Missouri where he then took Scott back with him to the slave state. Unfortunately for Scott, his master died, leaving him with no freedom. Scott later, with the help of abolitionist lawyers, sued for the his freedom in the court. Scott claimed that since he lived on free soil for a long time, he should have the right to remain emancipated. This trial became so critical that it was brought upon the United States Supreme Court with the hands of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney ruled that since African Americans were not entitled as slaves, Scott had no right to sue in the Court; he therefore cannot achieve his freedom. Taney also asserted that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 violated the 5th Amendment because "Congress cannot deprive persons of their property without due process of law." As a result, an aggravated North and a content South came about. President Lincoln even disapproved of the decision and even made speeches conveying words against the decision.
One way or another, Taney's decision would have inflicted anger to either both the North or the South. In this case, the ruling aroused anger in the North because they believed that the ruling was another way the South wanted to expand its slavery territories. But, if Taney did side with Scott, giving him his freedom, the South would also throw a fit. Even though both instances may differ in which side would be angered, both decisions would have led up to the Civil War. When one side is not happy, they revolt against the other.
MizChinkyEyez, I agree with her agreeing with midgetsxrulexthexworld91. I agree with the fact that if the South was betrayed by Taney, their feelings for secession would have even been more aroused. The South would have probably felt betrayed by Taney and they would have felt more displaced in the Union.
In response to kobe17's comment, I disagree with the fact that if Taney ruled in favor of Scott, the Civil War would have been postponed. I do agree, however, that if such a decision was made, both South and North would have grew much distant with one another. But such distance between the North and the South was the primary reason why there was so much tension between the two. THis tension brought about the Civil War, not postponing it.
If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott then i beleive there would have been much more controversy among the states. With this it would have started the Civil War a bit earlier then it had becuase the war was already on the verge of beggining, this action would have just caused it to occur sooner
oh yeah its Andrew Corless
per. 1
yo first off this is ronny =)
so about dred scott... he was a slave from illinois but then he moved with his master to the wisconsin territory. basically he sued for freedom because he was a slave in a free state and had been there for a good amount of time. so the chief justice at the time, roger taney, based his case on ruling for scott would be an intrusion according to the fifth amendment and ruling for his master would be due to constitutional rights, so he ruled in favor of scott's master. on the other hand, if taney had ruled for scott there would be a very different outcome. first off, other slaves would try to do the same following the precedent set by scott. second off, this would make the north and south even more distant than they already were. also, beacause of this disruption, it would lead to an earlier civil war.
midgetsxrulexthexworld91:
i agree on the idea that if taney had ruled for scott, the south would have seceeded sooner.
the next black billionaire:
i agree with sam that the uproar also wouldve been due to taney betraying the whites.
The Dred Scott Decision was about an african-american slave named Dred Scott. He he lived with his master in the free state of illinois for a long period of time, up until the army ordered his master to go back to missouri, a slave state. There, his master died. He was helped by abolitionist lawyers in order to become a free black. The court declared that "no slave or decsendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or had ever been a U.S. citizen." (www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm) since scott was considered a non-citizen of the U.S., he had no rights and had to remain a slave. This case was significant because Scott should have been considered a free slave but he wasn't and he wasn't being given any rights. If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, i think that it would have been a huge deal. maybe people would have started seeing blacks as equals now that they would be able to have the same rights as any white u.s. citizen. i also believe that we would have abolished slavery as a whole nation much sooner than we actually did.
I agree with midgetsxrulexthexworld91 because we both basically think the same thing about what would have happened if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott.
i also agree with noshan nerw when he said that if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, there might've been and uproar and the civil war might've started sooner. i think that this is a definite possibility of what could have happened.
p.s. this is jackie castillo from per. 1 <3
The Dred Scott v. Taney case of 1857 was where a slave named Dred Scott, sued his master for his freedom. His intentions were based on the fact that he had lived in Illinois, where slavery was illegal, for a long period of time with his master. In reaction the Supreme Court denied his case because he was a black slave, he wasn’t a citizen and he was not aloud to sue in federal court. However, the majority decided to further the case, lead by Chief Justice Taney. The ruling the case was that his subpoena was against the Fifth Amendment; thus concluding that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.
In addition the South was pleased by this unexpected victory, and the North was infuriated with the decision. In my opinion if the case was ruled in the favor of Scott the North would have been pleased and the South would have probably succeeded from the Union earlier than it had done in history. Also, it would have concluded that the Missouri Compromise was constitutional and would have ruled that Kansas and Nebraska Act was unconstitutional and that they would have to follow the 36 30 line.
I agree with midgetsXruleXtheXworld91 in which i too believe that the south would have secceded earlier than what is written in history.
I disagree with mikeb because i believe that if Tanny ruled in favor of Scott, the civil war would have occured earlier, in which the south would have secceded earlier thus causing disunion within the U.S.
The Dred Scott Decision was a Supreme COurt case. This case involved a slave, Dred Scott, who had been a resident of a free state for five years under his master. Scott was sueing Mrs. Emerson for his freedom and his family's freedom, but he failed due to the Chief Justice Roger Taney's ruling that a slave was a person's property and as property, a slave could be taken anywhere the master wanted and could not be taken away by the government according to the Fifth Amendment. the Supreme Court also announced its view on the Missouri Compromise, which they felt was unconstitutional.
I believe that if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, that many other slaves who were in a similar position would have had an escape avenue presented to them. A loophole in the system that the slaves could take advantage of to gain their freedom. It would also have been a decision in favor of the abolitionists. I believe it would've been an encouragement to the abolitionists and perhaps fueled the Civil War effort to early fruition.
**Esther Lee
from 3rd period ^-^
Dred Scott was a slave. He lived in Illinois, a free state, for five years. Then Scott sued for his freedom. However, the chief justice Roger Tanny ruled in favor of Scott's master. He ruled that Dred Scott was a slave, not a citzen. Therefore, he could sue anyone. If Tanny had ruled in Scott's favor, things would progressed quicker. I think the Civil War would have broke out quickly after this ruling. ~Leah Blackburn
I strongly disagree with Jenna's comment, saying the Dred Scott case would have prolonged the Civil War.
I agree with Alan's comment refering to why Dred Scott lost the case. Being that he was not a citizen.
Dred Scott was a black slave who had been residing with his master in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory for a long period of time. However, Dred Scott made an attempt to sue for his freedom but in the end was not successful. The Supreme Court, ruled by Chief Justice Taney at this time, denied that he would be granted freedom since he was a private property slave and not officially considered to be as a United States citizen. However, the fifth amendment stated that Congress could not take someone’s property without due process. Furthermore, the court said that the Missouri Compromise was obsolete to the Kansas-Nebraska act and that slavery was not opt to be banned from the territories. This was a surprising victory for the southerners and other slave supporters. However, this was a devastating blow to the northerners which foreshadowed further strenuous tension between the north and the south.
If the ruling had been in favor of Scott then I believe that the Missouri Compromise would then have to be upheld by Kansas and Nebraska, re-establishing the 36 30 line of slavery. I also believe that tension would not have been as intense as it was. The south was actually surprised that this ruling had happened so if the case was in favor for Scott then the south would not have been as enraged as the north was when the ruling was against Scott. Thus, the tension would not have been intense since it was not against the ideal expectance of the outcome of this particular case
I disagree with Gio1022's statement saying that Civil War would have come earlier because the ^above^ statement of mine that says that tenstions would have be substatially less than it was when the ruling was final against Scott.
I agree with lil chris in his statement that says that Kansas and Nebraska would have had to follow the Missouri Compromise's guidlines and they would have to re-establish the 36 30 line.
i agree with Kobe17 that the slaves would've taken advantage of the ruling of the Dred Scott Decision to gain their own freedom, however i disagree that this issue would've postponed the civil war, but rather hastened it.
I also agree with marcus (the next black billionaire) that the case furthered and expanded the north's opposition to slavery and at the same time igniting a strong southern view on how slavery should remain firmly entrenched in the U.S.
Dred Scott lived in illinois for 5 years as a slave. Then something happened to his master and he went to live in a free state for many years. Based on this he tried suing for his freedom. The case made it all the way to the supreme court where his claim was denied on the basis that since he was someone elses property the Supreme court had no right to free him under the 5th amendment. Then the supreme court took it a step further by declaring that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. I believe that if the court had ruled in favor of Scott that hot-headed northern abolitionists might have cooled down a bit.
C.C.
I agree with mikeb when he infers that if the Supreme court would have ruled in favor of Scott that it might have delayed the Civil War because northerners would feel content for a while about slavery being abolished.
I disagree with The Next Black Billionaire when he says that slavery wouldnt have been affected if the Supreme court had ruled in favor of Scott because it would have changed views of slavery in both the North and the South. The North would have proof that slavery was illegal and the South would have to figure out a way to justify slavery.
Mr. Wise this is SAM......Dred Scott was a slave who moved out of his residence in the south and lived in free teritories in the North for many years. When he returned Emersons widow, told Dred Scott that he was still a slave. Dred Scott disagreed and sued. After long court orders and trials he was in fact still a slave. The south would have been in uproar and the civil war might have begun earlier if Taney had ruled in favor of scott.
I agree NOSHAN NERW because he thinks that the civil war would have begun earlier also.
I disaggree with mikeb because he belives that the civil war would have been delayed.
In the Dred Scott case, a enslaved black attempted to sue his master for his freedom after his master moved him to a free state. The case went all the way to the supreme court. The sumpreme court ruling was a major victory for the south, because not only did the judge deny Scott's freedom, he ruled that slaves are property and whatever the owners did with their property was up to them, he also ruled taht slaves were not and could never become citizens and also he decided that the supreme court could not tell terrotories if they could have slaves or not. This deceision caused uproar and contributed to the civil war. If Taney would have ruled in favor of scott, the southd would have gotten angry andtried to distance itself from the union. I think that at this point in history the civil war was unavoidable.
i agree with midgetsxrulexthexworld91 because i also think the south would have succeded sooner. I strongly disagree with mikeb because nothing would haver delayed the civil war
it was a lawsuit, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1857 that ruled that people of African descent, whether or not they were slaves, could never be citizens of the United States, and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The decision for the court was written by Chief Justice Roger Taney.
The decision sided with border ruffians in the Bleeding Kansas dispute who were afraid a free Kansas would be a haven for runaway slaves from Missouri. It enraged abolitionists.
The parts of this decision dealing with the citizenship and rights of African-Americans were explicitly overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
i think if Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Dred Scott it would have led to an earlier civil war
i agree with kwix0419's comment that if Roger Taney would have ruled in favor of Scott that the civil war would have began earlier
In the Dred Scott court case, Dred Scott was hoping to gain his freedom. When the Supreme Court and the chief justice heard this, they did not agree with it. Their decision was to say to him that he is a personal property and that he will not be able to be a free person. They were kind of saying once a slave, always a slave. In this case, this would be extremely unfair. According to the Fifth Amendment, property being owned by an owner could be placed anywhere and the government could not take that property away.
Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in a free state for many years. He sued for his freedom, being that he was on free soil. The Supreme Court said that because Scott was black, he wasn't an actual citizen and had no right to sue. They then declared that all black slaves, free or not, were not allowed to become citizens of the United States.The Civil War was inevitable because tensions were already previously rising and continued to rise.
I agree with Marissa Washington that Scott wanted to have his freedom, after his master moved him to a free state. This is understandable because if I were a slave and my master moved me to a free state, I too would sue my master for my freedom.
I disagree with Jenna Poretta because I feel that if Taney were to be on the side of Scott that would've made more tensions rise. Thus, speeding up the Civil War. No matter what, it was inevitable.
I agree with Lakers17 because they also say that it would have cause an uproar in the South, and like i've previously stated, tensions were already rising. So again, the Civil War was inevitable.
-Stephanie Tarver per. 3
I agree with brownie-pants because the fifth amendment did state the personal property law. Dred Scott was the personal property of his master, which didn't give him the right to sue his master.
Dred Scott was a slave that resided in Wisconsin for five years with his master. After, he tried to sued for his freedom since Wisconsin was a free state. However, this "Dred Scott-Decision" was decided by saying that Dred Scott was NOT a U.S. citizen and therefore could not take any legal action. Furthermore, the fact that any owner could take his slave anywhere flatly contradicted the Missouri Compromise since it stated that slavery could be lie in that territory. Simply, there could be slavery anywhere as long as the master takes them there, raising controversial issues among the Free-Soilers, abolitionists, and pro-southerns.
Dred scott was a slave to dr.john emerson .When his owner migrated to the free state of Illinois from the slave state of Missouri, Dred Scott was taken along with his master. They then migrated to the free territory of Wisconsin. Scott lived on free land for a long period of time.In 1847 when his master died, Scott, aided by abolitionist lawyers, tried to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free because he lived on free land for a long period of time.
ten years later,in March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.
The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.
Taney -- a large supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression -- wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The framers of the Constitution, he wrote, believed that blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever profit could be made by it."
research: www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/scott/
i think that the signifigance of this court case is that it caused tensions between the North and the South to grown.It also caused Laws regarding slavery to be passed at local, state, and national levels that caused much dissension between the two regions of the country.i also believe that if Tanny ruled in favor of Scott it would have just further angered the south and perhaps led to an even earlier civil war.
I disagree with mikeb on the fact that if taney ruled in favor of Scott, then the country would not be as divided, because if he had ruled for scott then wouldnt the south become angry that slaves had the chance to be free.
i would have to say that i agree with lakers_117 becuaseif Tanny taken scott's side the the south would be angry and take more action into doing somehting
oh by the way this is Ashley H. from period 2 <3
I agree with man'o'steel's comment about the part mentioned about Chief Taney's ruling of the Missouri Compromise being unconstitutional. This puts the North in a pickle jar, since slavery could be allowed anywhere if the masters take them there, giving the South a very large unfair advantage.
JAMES LE PERIOD 2
I agree with lakers_117 because he mentioned the Congress siding with the South, which corners the North. This leaves the North in a fearful and stressful state. In effect, the North must resort to other measures in order to gain their part of this sectional country.
Also because he is cool and I'm history-day partner.
JAMES LE PERIOD 2
The Dred Scott Decision was decided in 1857 by the Supreme Court that Dred Scott could not sue his master for his freedom and that no slave was allowed constitutional rights or to become a U.S Citizen. The Dred Scott decision also answered the question as to whether Congress had the right to exlude slavery in any territory in which the people wanted it. The state of Illionis during this time was considered a free state, where Scott resided with his master. After Scott's master died he went on to work as a hired slave and asked to buy his and his wifes freedom from her master. Her master refused and Scott filed a lawsuit in which the Supreme Court resided over. Cheif Justice Taney from the slave state of Maryland presided over the case and ruled against Scott. The court stated that a slave was "privately owned property" and that a master could be taken in to ANY territory and still be held as a slave. The reasoning was that of the Fifth Amendment which forbade Congress to deprive people of their property without due process. The supreme court also said that the Missouri Compromise had been repealed and that the Compromise of 1830 had been unconstitutional and that Congress could not ban slavery from a territory regardless of what the terrirtorial legislatures wanted. If Taney had in fact ruled in favor of Scott then the slavery issue would have taken an entirely different turn. IT would have angered the South much more and possibly started the Civil War earlier or it would have delayed it and helped the abolitionists in their cause to end slavery.
The Next Black Billionaire I disagree with what you said about the concept of slavery notbeing affected. I believe that other slaves in the free-soil states would have tired to sue for their freedom as well if Taney had sided with Scott.
Jenna I disagree that the Civil War would have been prolonged. I believe that this would have pushed the South too far too fast and that they would have taken action then rather than later. Seeing as how cotton is their largest source of profit and that they need slaves to collect it, if Taney had sided with Scott than more slaves would have been filled with a sense of empowerment and peobably rebelled or fought for their freedom from their masters.
The outcome of the Dred Scott decision was that he was not granted his freedom because he was still considered a slave and come not become an U.S. citizen. This case was significant because it displayed the flaws of the U.S. Constitution, the Fifth Amendment prohibited Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law. With this, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 became unconstitutional because prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase and since Scott was sent to Wisconsin which was declared free territory with this act the courts decision was unfair. If Roger Taney had ruled in favor of Scott slavery would have been contained within the limits of the Missouri Compromise and the Civil War might have never happened. Possibly with this decision the relations between the North and the South might have been divided into separate mini territories in which they would be able to govern themselves as slavery and non-slavery territories.
Dred Scott Decision was a cases that had dictated any people of African heritage that had come to the US. The decision was a push to expand slavery, many believed. Dred Scott's master had died and he was trying to gain his freedom in court. His foundation on winning the case was that he was living on free land for a long time. However, not being a citizen without rights meant he really had no right to freedom. THerefore the ruling was that he must remain a slave.
In my opinion, if Taney had ruled in favor of Scott, the territories would have less differences. This means that the North and South could have gotten along better without as many difference which could have played a majoy part in the time of the Civil War.
MikeB
I agree with him concerning the distance between the North and South delaying the war because they wouldnt have as many differences.
jenna porretta
I agree with her because many slaved wouldve tried for freedom because it was possible for them to attain.
Dred Scott was a free slave who tried to sue for his freedom after he was free for five years. Unfortunately, the chief justice considered him property since slaves were property and couldn't grant him freedom because of its contradiction with the fifth amendment. IF Tanny would have ruled in favor of Dred Scott, the civil war could have been prolonged. Additionally, the abolitionists of the North would not have been so raged and would have caused less division between the Union.
The Dred Scott Decision was a lawsuit decided upon the Supreme Court in 1857. It ruled that any African descent people, either free or slaves, could never become citizens of the United States, and that Congress possessed no right to prohibit slavery in any federal territory. Situated in Illinois, Dred Scott was a slave for three years there while his 'master' was in the US Army. Illinois was a free state, and he was freed. After his master 'died', Scott was employed as a hired slave. Gradually, Scott asked to buy his and his wife's freedom. The 'master' wife denied his proposition, so Scott sued for his freedom that he was entitled by living in the free state. If Tanny hadn't ruled in favor of Scott, the North wouldn't have been in as much turmoil and anger , and maybe the country would not be completely sectionalized and divided. This would then cause the delay of the Civil War.
Dred Scott was a slave who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Wisconsin, which was then part of the Louisiana Purchase. The court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that Scott could not therefore bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's sojourn outside of Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.
(wikipedia)
The Dred Scott Decision was about a slave named Dred Scott in Illinois who sued for his freedom. Then Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the court stated that Dred Scott could not sue because he wasn't a citizen. Taney also stated that Congress did not have the right to decide what territories would be pro slavery or antislavery. I believe if Taney ruled over in this decision then the country wouldn't have split in half which caused tension for the civil war.
Post a Comment