Comments on APUSH-ERHS: Dred Scott Decision

The Dred Scott Decision was about a slave named Dr...

2007-11-18T22:41:00.000-08:00

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.

Dred Scott was a slave who sued unsuccessfully for...

2007-11-18T20:05:00.000-08:00

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 a lawsuit decided upon...

2007-11-18T19:59:00.000-08:00

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 free slave who tried to sue for ...

2007-11-18T19:34:00.000-08:00

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.

MikeBI agree with him concerning the distance betw...

2007-11-18T19:17:00.000-08:00

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 Decision was a cases that had dictated ...

2007-11-18T19:15:00.000-08:00

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.

The outcome of the Dred Scott decision was that he...

2007-11-18T18:56:00.000-08:00

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.

The Dred Scott Decision was decided in 1857 by the...

2007-11-18T18:53:00.000-08:00

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.

I agree with lakers_117 because he mentioned the C...

2007-11-18T18:27:00.000-08:00

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

I agree with man'o'steel's comment about the part ...

2007-11-18T18:20:00.000-08:00

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

oh by the way this is Ashley H. from period 2 <3

2007-11-18T18:15:00.000-08:00

oh by the way this is Ashley H. from period 2 <3

Dred scott was a slave to dr.john emerson .When hi...

2007-11-18T18:14:00.000-08:00

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

Dred Scott was a slave that resided in Wisconsin f...

2007-11-18T18:12:00.000-08:00

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.

I agree with brownie-pants because the fifth amend...

2007-11-18T18:02:00.000-08:00

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.

I disagree with Jenna Poretta because I feel that...

2007-11-18T17:58:00.002-08:00

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 Marissa Washington that Scott wanted ...

2007-11-18T17:58:00.000-08:00

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.

Dred Scott was a slave who had lived in a free sta...

2007-11-18T17:55:00.000-08:00

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.

In the Dred Scott court case, Dred Scott was hopin...

2007-11-18T17:54:00.000-08:00

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.

i agree with kwix0419's comment that if Roger Tane...

2007-11-18T17:32:00.000-08:00

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

it was a lawsuit, decided by the United States Su...

2007-11-18T17:29:00.000-08:00

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 case, a enslaved black attempted...

2007-11-18T17:18:00.000-08:00

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

Mr. Wise this is SAM......Dred Scott was a slave w...

2007-11-18T17:11:00.000-08:00

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.

I agree with mikeb when he infers that if the Supr...

2007-11-18T17:01:00.000-08:00

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.

Dred Scott lived in illinois for 5 years as a slav...

2007-11-18T16:51:00.000-08:00

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 Kobe17 that the slaves would've taken...

2007-11-18T16:50:00.000-08:00

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.