Following this decision to decide in favor of Sanford in the case, Dred Scott appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 1857, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case. In his ruling, Taney revealed that seven of the nine judges who heard the case had agreed that Scott should continue to be a slave. Furthermore, Taney stated that Scott was not an American citizen and had no right to bring any lawsuit in the Federal courts. Taney also declared that Scott and his family had never been free since slaves were personal property. While he declared that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, he also stated that the Federal Government had no right to forbid slavery in new territories.
Emancipation Proclamation:
The ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case prompted the American public to react strongly with a number of antislavery groups expressing their concerns of the ability of slavery to spread unchecked. This led to the formation of the new Republican Party with the purpose of forbidding the spread of slavery and renewing the fight to be in charge of the Congress and the courts. The well-planned political campaign of the Republican Party in 1860 resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln as America's President and the secession of South Carolina from the Union. While Scott and his family eventually regained their of the Civil War from preserving the Union to a war for freedom (Gill par, 6).
Conclusion:
According to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott vs. Sanford case, it's true that the court adopted the long standing ideal that slaves were not equal to American citizens. The Supreme Court emerged to be authorizing slavery under the terms of the Constitution itself in addition to stating that slavery couldn't be forbidden or restricted within America.
Works Cited:
"1820 Missouri Compromise." HistoryCentral.com: History's Home on the Web. MultiEducator Inc. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
"The Dred Scott Decision." AmericanCivilWar.com. AmericanCivilWar.com. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
"Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)." Infoplease: All the Knowledge You Need. Information Please: Pearson Education, Inc. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
"Dred Scott v. Sandford." OYEZ: U.S. SUPREME COURT MEDIA. OYEZ. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
Gill, Kathy. "What Is the Emancipation Proclamation?" About.com: U.S. Politics. About.com, a Part of the New York Times Company. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
"Missouri Compromise (1820)." ENotes.com. ENotes.com, Inc. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
"Missouri Compromise." Infoplease: All the Knowledge You Need. Information Please: Pearson Education, Inc. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
"U.S. Supreme Court:DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) 60 U.S. 393 (How.)." FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters Business. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. .
Taney further ruled that constitution did not consider slave to be any different than other kinds of property. He also rejected the Missouri Compromise saying that it was unconstitutional. Taney offered no hope to Scott on the basis on his stay in Illinois and instead stated categorically that, "the status of slaves who had been taken to free States or territories and who had afterwards returned depended on the law
Thus, Scott was always a slave in areas that were free" ("Classifying arguments," Landmark Supreme Court Cases, 2009). After the Scott decision, advocates of compromise between slave and free states such as Senator Henry Clay found their views legally invalidated. Clay had advocated the doctrine of popular sovereignty: that states should decide whether slavery was prohibited or permitted within their borders. As a result of Scott v. Sandford Northern states
3. In February 1946, the U.S. Treasury asked the U.S. Embassy in Moscow why the Soviet Union was not supporting the newly created World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Kennan wrote the response to these questions, but included a broader base. 4. Initially, the intended audience was the American government, but when the document was published in Foreign Affairs, the audience became the academic and interested public, along with a
California was particularly problematic. Taken from Mexico after the war, California was geographically cut in half along the 36°30, and was therefore legally and politically cut in half. However, residents applied for statehood as a free state in 1850. Congress responded with a set of complicated compromises: California would be admitted as a free state in exchange for the Fugitive Slave Law, which required that citizens residing in free
The true spirit and meaning of the amendments, as we said in the Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wall. 36), cannot be understood without keeping in view the history of the times when they were adopted, and the general objects they plainly sought to accomplish. At the time when they were incorporated into the Constitution, it required little knowledge of human nature to anticipate that those who had long been regarded
The FDIC is one of Roosevelt's most notable legacies. However, New deal economics have largely fallen by the wayside. The neo-liberal market economy that prevailed in the latter decades of the 20th century counteracts the inherent socialism of the New Deal. A series of public works programs like the Civil Works Administration (CWA), the Public Works Association (PWA), the Works Progress Administration (WPA), and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) helped
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now