Dred Scott Decision Essay
The Dred Scott Decision The Dread Scott decision will forever be remembered as one of the worst decisions made by the Justices of the Supreme Court in United States’ history. The significance of the Dread Scott decision is the importance of the justices in the Supreme Court to practice judicial restraint, and what the consequences are when judicial restraint is abandoned for political gain. It is also a prime example of the justices interpreting the constitution in a way that benefits their own agendas. This poor decision had extreme consequences that shook an already divided nation, and led the country to the Civil War. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, which had been a slave state since the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820.
…show more content…
Emerson, Scott began his fight for his family’s freedom and filed a lawsuit against Mrs. Emerson in 1846. The grounds for suit against Mrs. Emerson were false imprisonment since they lived in the free states of Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where slavery was banned. There were many other cases similar to this, in the state of Missouri, in which the slaves won their suit under the same circumstances, and were granted their freedom. In 1852, after a very long legal battle, the Scott’s lost their case. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Emerson transferred the Scotts’ ownership to her brother, John Sanford. This transfer was important in getting the Dred Scott case to the Supreme Court because Sanford lived in New York. And the constitution states that suits between citizens of different states must be tried in the federal …show more content…
The first part stated that African slaves, or Negros, were in fact not citizens of the United States, according to the Justices’ racial interpretation of the United States Constitution, and, therefore, could not sue in court. Part two stated that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional based on the opinion that slaves were property and the 5th amendment. It states that no persons shall, ”be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This meant that, in the Justices’ opinion, Dred Scott had never become a free man during his residence in the free states; therefore, he was still a
Emerson, Scott began his fight for his family’s freedom and filed a lawsuit against Mrs. Emerson in 1846. The grounds for suit against Mrs. Emerson were false imprisonment since they lived in the free states of Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where slavery was banned. There were many other cases similar to this, in the state of Missouri, in which the slaves won their suit under the same circumstances, and were granted their freedom. In 1852, after a very long legal battle, the Scott’s lost their case. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Emerson transferred the Scotts’ ownership to her brother, John Sanford. This transfer was important in getting the Dred Scott case to the Supreme Court because Sanford lived in New York. And the constitution states that suits between citizens of different states must be tried in the federal …show more content…
The first part stated that African slaves, or Negros, were in fact not citizens of the United States, according to the Justices’ racial interpretation of the United States Constitution, and, therefore, could not sue in court. Part two stated that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional based on the opinion that slaves were property and the 5th amendment. It states that no persons shall, ”be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This meant that, in the Justices’ opinion, Dred Scott had never become a free man during his residence in the free states; therefore, he was still a