PE, you made me so happy that I wrote you a Supreme Court case brief!
Dred Scott v. Sanford 1856
Freedom vs. Property
During the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that a slave who resided in a Free State was not to be considered a free man upon his return to the Slave States. The United States Supreme Court judged based upon whether Dred Scott, a slave belonging to a Missouri slave owner was constitutionally free when he and his owner took up residence in Illinois, a Free State. When Scott’s owner, John Emerson, moved him to Illinois and into the Wisconsin Territory - both of which were lands that did not allow slavery - was his role as a slave no longer valid? After Emerson died, the slave owners moved back into Missouri, a Slave State, and Scott sued Emerson’s widow for his and his family’s freedom. He was defeated in the state courts, and brought it to the Federal courts where his position was heard at the Missouri Supreme Court, but again, he was defeated. The Supreme Court, wanting to clarify the matter once and for all then decided to hear his case and determine whether or not the Missouri Supreme Court decision was Constitutional.
The Supreme Court decided 7-2 in favor of Scott’s owner on the grounds that African Americans were not citizens. As a slave, Scott was not entitled to the right to bring law suits to court in the first place. The idea was also stated that because Scott performed the suit in the Slave State Missouri, that any slave would remain a slave as not to infringe upon the property rights of the slave owner. The Supreme Court Chief Justice, Rodger B. Taney wrote, “In regard to the issue of Scott's becoming free when he moved to the free State of Illinois, the laws of the State in which the petitioner was currently resident, namely the slave State of Missouri, should apply.” Constitutionally, the 5th amendment guaranteed the slave owners the right to the possession of Dred Scott, and took precedence over Scott’s rights which were inherently applicable to begin with.
The importance of this case lies in the fact that any slave who resided in a slave state was to remain a slave no matter what circumstances occurred prior. The crossing of the State border from a Slave State into a Free State did not guarantee freedom, just as the crossing from a Free State into a Slave State did not allow for any freedoms to be taken away. In the process, the court also struck down the Missouri compromise (a compromise that granted slaves freedom when crossing over the State border between Slave and Free States) as unconstitutional because it deprived slave owners of life, liberty, or property without just compensation under the 5th Amendment. This action allowed slave owners to maintain ownership of their slaves no matter where they took them in the United States.
Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court decision that granting a slave freedom would ultimately take away the freedoms of the slave owner. Because slaves were considered property at the time, I agree with the constitutionality of this enactment based upon the rights to property granted in the 5th Amendment. In my own opinion, I believe that the slaves should have been administered as slaves or free men depending upon the state of their birth. Because Dred Scott was born in Virginia, a Slave State, he should have been considered a slave until he was granted freedom by whoever his owner would be. Had a man been born in interstate space, in a U. S. territory, or in a Free State, he would be granted freedom for all of his life.
(http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar09.html)
My Grand Return
, I will risk all and make it a 100 point pot. Sign up here....depending upon whether or not you love me will determine whether we do World, Classic, Med, or no game at all.
)
)
)
)