Dred Scott Desicion :: American America History

Dred Scott DesicionThe Dred Scott decision was an important ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that had a significant influence on the issue of slavery. The carapace was refractory in 1857 and, in effect, declared that no black-- drop or slave--could claim United States citizenship. Slaves were viewed as property, and such had no respective(prenominal) right. Furthermore, the decision indicated that Congress could not negative slavery in United States territories. I believe that the decision was morally wrong and failed to recognize the rights of people to be free. In addition, the ruling had many governmental and social implications, aroused angry resentment in the North and led the nation a step closer to cultivated war. The decision was finally overridden after(prenominal) the Civil War with the introduction and passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, adopted in 1868, extended citizenship to former slaves and gave them the ben efit and protection of individual rights. (textbook, 295) The Dred Scott the decision involved a slave owned by U.S. Army surgeon, John Emerson. Emerson lived in Missouri, a state that permitted slavery. In 1834, Scott went to live with Emerson in Illinois, a state that prohibited slavery. They subsequently lived in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. In 1838, Scott returned to Missouri with Emerson. Emerson died in Missouri in 1843, and three geezerhood later, Scott sued the surgeons widow for his freedom. Scott based his cause on the argument that his former residence in a free state and a free territory--Illinois and Wisconsin--made him a free man. A state enlistment court ruled in Scotts favor, but the Missouri Supreme Court later reversed the decision. Meanwhile, Scott had become legally regarded as the property of John F. A. Sanford of unused York. Because Sanford did not live in Missouri, Scotts lawyers were able to transfer t he case to a federal official court. This court ruled against Scott, and his lawyers then took the case to the Supreme Court. By a majority of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott could not bring a suit in a federal court. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, oral presentation for the majority, declared that Scott could not do so because blacks were not U.S. citizens. The court could have simply dismissed the case after ruling on Scotts citizenship. But in that location was a growing national desire for a ruling on the constitutionality of such laws as the Missouri Compromise.Dred Scott Desicion the Statesn America HistoryDred Scott DesicionThe Dred Scott decision was an important ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that had a significant influence on the issue of slavery. The case was decided in 1857 and, in effect, declared that no black--free or slave--could claim United States citizenship. Slaves were viewed as property, and such had no individual right. Furtherm ore, the decision indicated that Congress could not prohibit slavery in United States territories. I believe that the decision was morally wrong and failed to recognize the rights of people to be free. In addition, the ruling had many political and social implications, aroused angry resentment in the North and led the nation a step closer to civil war. The decision was finally overridden after the Civil War with the introduction and passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment, adopted in 1868, extended citizenship to former slaves and gave them the benefit and protection of individual rights. (textbook, 295) The Dred Scott the decision involved a slave owned by U.S. Army surgeon, John Emerson. Emerson lived in Missouri, a state that permitted slavery. In 1834, Scott went to live with Emerson in Illinois, a state that prohibited slavery. They later lived in the Wisconsin Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. In 1838, Scott retur ned to Missouri with Emerson. Emerson died in Missouri in 1843, and three years later, Scott sued the surgeons widow for his freedom. Scott based his suit on the argument that his former residence in a free state and a free territory--Illinois and Wisconsin--made him a free man. A state circuit court ruled in Scotts favor, but the Missouri Supreme Court later reversed the decision. Meanwhile, Scott had become legally regarded as the property of John F. A. Sanford of New York. Because Sanford did not live in Missouri, Scotts lawyers were able to transfer the case to a federal court. This court ruled against Scott, and his lawyers then took the case to the Supreme Court. By a majority of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that Scott could not bring a suit in a federal court. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, speaking for the majority, declared that Scott could not do so because blacks were not U.S. citizens. The court could have simply dismissed the case after ruling on Scotts citizenship. B ut there was a growing national desire for a ruling on the constitutionality of such laws as the Missouri Compromise.