Dred Scott Decision example essay topic

A momentous decision is an important decision, or a decision of great consequence, that may affect a certain group of people to a certain extent, or it may affect the majority of people in many different ways. A momentous decision could also be an important decision that affects the majority of the population during that certain time period, or maybe affects the future populations to come. Another point of view of a momentous decision is a once in a lifetime event that happens, even if its in a fiction book. Examples of momentous decisions vary greatly on topics and time periods. A few examples are: the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, Huckleberry Finns deciding he would rather go to Hell then betray his friend Jim, Rosa Parks decision not to move to the back of the bus, King Lears decision to divide his land, the famous court trial; Roe vs. Wade, the Dred Scott decision, Romeo and Juliets decision to be a couple, Solidarity's decision to resist the government of Poland, Aung San Suu Ky is decision to resist the government of Myanmar, Martin Luthers decision to nail his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the Wittenburg Cathedral, the decision of the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers, Richard Nixon's decision to visit China, etc. As shown in the examples above, there were many momentous decisions during the past that have affected that certain time period, or might even affect present or future time periods as well.

One of the many momentous decision that affected the mid 19th century, 20th century, and probably many more centuries to come is the Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott Decision was an important ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of slavery. The decision, which was made up in 1857 declared that African American, free or slave, could claim United States citizenship. It also stated that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the United States territories, mainly speaking of the Midwestern territories. During the 1850's in the United States, Southern support of slavery and Northern opposition to it collided more violently than ever before over the case of Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedom on the basis of seven years of residence in a free state and a free territory. When the outweighed proslavery Supreme Court of the United States heard Scotts case, they that not only was he still a slave, but that the main law ensuring that slavery would not enter the new Midwestern territories of the United States.

This decision sent the US into fights between the disagreeing groups. The chaos would end only after a long and bloody civil war fought primarily over the issue of slavery and its extension into the Midwestern territories. The Supreme Courts ruling in Dred Scott vs. Sandford helped accelerate the arrival of the American Civil War by intensifying the already tense relationship between Northerners and Southerners. Dred Scott was the slave of a United States Army surgeon, John Emerson of Missouri. Missouri was a state that permitted slavery, so there was no law that was broken. In 1834, Dred Scott went with Emerson to live in Illinois, which also prohibited slavery.

They later lived in the Wisconsin Territory, but slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise was a plan agreed upon the United States Congress in 1820 to settle the debate over slavery in the Louisiana Purchase area. The plan temporarily maintained the balance between free and slave states. In 1838, Dred Scott and Emerson returned to Missouri. Emerson died five years later, and in 1846, Dred Scott sued the surgeons widow for his freedom. Unlike the states in the South, Missouri enacted slave laws that were based upon those of Virginia and Kentucky.

These laws provided an opportunity for slaves to file suits for freedom, which made Dred Scotts decision completely legal. The suits of Dred Scott and Dred Scotts wife, Harriet, arent exactly known, but a possible answer that most historians believe is that Dred Scotts long-time friend and childhood companion, Taylor Blow, may have played a key role. Other historians feel the suits may have been started by an attorney who felt he could make a large amount of money form the case. There is also a possibility that it was Dred Scott himself. 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. On June 30th, 1847, with Judge Alexander Hamilton presiding, or as the head judge.

Even with an ambiguous record, it seems that Scotts attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, the former attorney general of Missouri, spoke for the slave. Mrs. Emerson was represented by George W. Goode, a Virginia lawyer with a strong proslavery feeling. As mentioned above, Scotts lawyer, Bay, established the point of Scotts residence on free land, but besides that Bay relied on the testimony of Samuel Russell, who told the court that he had hired the Scotts from Mrs. Emerson, paying Mrs. Emersons father, Alexander Sandford. While being cross-examined by Goode, Russell admitted that it was actually his wife who had made all the arrangements, and that Russell didnt know anything more than what his wife had told him. Since that made Scotts case harder to prove, the jury was told to ignore Russell testimony, but that testimony proved that Dred and Harriet Scott werent Mrs. Emersons slave at all. After the court had realized that, the jury came up with the verdict for the defendant, which was Mrs. Emerson.

On December 2, 1847, Judge Hamilton ordered the case to be retried, but instead of having the same trial, Mrs. Emersons lawyer filled a bill to have a new trial instead. The reason for why the bill was filled is because an error was made in the first trial. If the new trial had been accepted, it would have been transferred to the Missouri supreme court. Since it wasnt, that had the retrial. As of the status of the two sides, Mrs. Emerson wanted them to remain as their slaves, and Dred and Harriet Scott ended up having to start all over again.

The Blows, companion of Dred Scott, hated Mrs. Emerson and the Sandfords, so they were determined to do whatever it took to win. Before the trial was retried, Mrs. Emersons family hired new attorneys, Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris, to represent them instead of Goode. The case was finally retired on January 12, 1850, with Judge Hamilton preceding again. This time, the Scotts based their argument on the fact that Mrs. Emerson had hired Dred and Harriet out to several people, which proved that the were slaves. The jury found the case in the Scotts favor and declared them free.

Even though the Scotts were free, Mrs. Emerson didnt stop fighting. She tried to get another retrial, but that didnt work, so she appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court. The attorneys from both sides signed an agreement recognizing that the cases of Dred and Harriet Scott and Mrs. Emerson were identical, they would become one single case. The facts of the case were filed on March 1850, but the court didnt hear the case until 1852. Part of the problem the Scotts faced with the delay was that Missouri was beginning to feel increasing political pressure over the question of slavery.

The state found itself in an awkward position, since it was bordered on three sides by free states. The pressure of the free territory around Missouri made Missouri proslavery legislature to guard against antislavery laws. Since Missouri was being pressured by free territory, the state supreme court judges who heard the case decided to reverse the previous courts decision and reject Scotts claim to freedom. In the Autumn of 1851, Judge William Scott and Judge Hamilton R. Gamble joined Judge John F. Ryland in reconsidering the Scott case.

On March 22nd, 1852, Judge Scott handed down the decision, which was that they favored for Mrs. Emerson. The Scotts didnt file a quick appeal with the Supreme Court, but instead, they waited until Mrs. Emerson gave the Scotts to her brother, John Sandford. On November 2nd, 1853, the Scotts filed their case against Sandford in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri. The suit accused Sandford, who was a citizen of New York, of illegally assaulting, holding, and imprisoning Dred Scot, Harriet Scott, and their two daughters, all citizens of Missouri. This case was then set for April 1854. On April 7th, 1854, Sandford and his attorney, Hugh A. Garland, challenged the courts right to hear the case based upon the fact that Dred Scott descended from slaves of African blood, therefore never being a true citizen of Missouri.

Judge Robert W. Wells denied the challenge, stating that for the purpose of this case, citizenship implied nothing more than residence in a state. After a very long legal plan, the case finally came to trial on May 15, 1854. During the hearing, neither Scotts or Sandfords lawyers called any witnesses or introduced any evidence that had no already been presented to previous courts. The jury returned a verdict in Sandfords favor. Since the trial went to quickly, Alexander Field, Scotts attorney, filed a bill of exceptions, which is the first step necessary to take the case to the highest court in the land. Scotts work is becoming more and more difficult.

He has to find a new attorney who could argue the case before the Supreme Court. They wanted an experienced lawyer who was willing to donate his fee for legal services. Many months passed, and Scott still had neither an attorney or the money to get the case. On Christmas Eve of 1854, Alexander Field wrote to Montgomery Blair suggesting that he or some other Washington attorney might serve the cause of humanity (pg. 44, The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship) Meanwhile, the Sandfords didnt have a hard time at all finding an attorney. The two attorneys were Henry S. Geyer, and Reverdy Johnson. Henry S. Geyer was a respected member of the Missouri State Bar, and Reverdy Johnson was a former senator and attorney general under President Zachary Taylor.

Those two attorneys were among the most respected constitutional lawyers in the country. The written notes of Dred Scott vs. Sandford was delivered to the Supreme Court on December 20, 1854. Scott was waiting for the Supreme Courts decision, which were the effects of the Kansas-Nebraska act, were beginning to take hold. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by congress in 1854.

It provided that two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska, were to be made from the Indian land that lay west of the band of the Missouri River, and north of 37 degrees latitude. Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois introduced the bill into Congress. Finally, on February 7th, 1856, Blair filed his summary of the case. Blair argued that when Scott had gone to Illinois state constitution specifically forbade slavery in that state. He argued that as soon as Scott set foot in Illinois, he was free from slavery.

Scotts arguments consists of him being a slave in the slave state of Missouri. Scott had traveled to the free state of Illinois, upon which action he became free. The principle of permanent emancipation entitled Scott to remain a free man after returning to Missouri; once free, always free, the principle said. Scott indeed had the right to sue for his freedom in federal court because he was a citizen by virtue of his residence in one of the United States of America. Sandfords Arguments consisted of three elements: 1) The restrictions on slavery and the Missouri Compromise were invalid because Congress did not have the authority to decide the issue of slavery in the territories. 2) Scotts traveling to Illinois Territory did not, therefore, make him a free man.

#) Scotts return to Missouri, a slave state, meant that since he had never been a free man, he kept his status as a slave. (pg. 54, The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship) On March 6th, 1857, Taney, Chief Justice, began reading a shortened summary of his opinion in a crowded courtroom. By May 13th, Taneys opinion had not been released for publication. In late May, Taneys official opinion was released. The Supreme court had decided once and for all that Dred Scott was still a slave and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, a finding that made it null and void. This ruling had been long awaited and it was received by many.

All that remained of this case is the effects on society. The impact of the Dred Scott decision spread quickly throughout the land. From local papers, to the politicians, everyone had an opinion to the decision and it affected them in some way. Those opposed to slavery had been working for the release of all slaves directed their anger towards the Court. They were determined to see Dred Scott reversed in order to stop the spread of slavery throughout the US Legislature. Republicans thought that by taking over the executive and legislative branches of the government, they could place pressure on the court to reconsider its decision.

Throughout the Civil War years, President Lincoln, who was an abolitionist, clashed with Chief Justice Taney. During the next three years, Taney opposed nearly all action taken by Lincoln in the name of the federal government. In the long run, it wasnt the decision of the Supreme court, or the opinion of Roger Taney, nor it was the Civil War, constitution amendment or the Emancipation Proclamation that was the beginning of the end of slavery. It was the determination of a highly respected man with common sense and a great determination to fight for what he felt was right. To summarize that in one word, that man would be Dred Scott. This event would be a momentous decision because it affected many people then and now.

Without this first step to freedom of the slaves or African Americans, then life wouldnt be like it is. Instead, it would be much different, just like back then.