Check regional listings
|Explore through topicThe Court and also DemocracyLaw, strength & PersonalityThe first Hundred YearsCapitalism and Conflict broadening Civil RightsThe Future the the Court|
You are watching: The dred scott decision on the issue of slavery upheld the southern viewpoint that
The Court"s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, holding the blacks could not be U.S. Citizens, exacerbated sectional tensions between North and also South.Above, a portrait of Dred Scott. Reproduction courtesy that the Library the Congress
See more: Why Did Emily Leave Make It Or Break It, Make It Or Break It Is Pre
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the supreme Court ruled that Americans of african descent, whether complimentary or slave, were no American citizens and also could not sue in federal court. The Court likewise ruled that Congress lacked strength to ban slavery in the U.S. Territories. Finally, the Court claimed that the legal rights of slaveowners were constitutionally safeguarded by the fifth Amendment because slaves to be categorized as property.The controversy started in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon v the U.S. Army, to buy Dred Scott, a slave, and eventually relocated Scott to a basic in the Wisconsin Territory. Enslavement was banned in the are pursuant come the Missouri Compromise. Scott live there for the next four years, rental himself the end for work throughout the long stretches when Emerson to be away. In 1840, Scott, his new wife, and their young children moved come Louisiana and also then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scott household to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, after ~ laboring and saving because that years, the Scotts sought to buy their liberty from Sanford, but she refused. Dred Scott then sue Sanford in a state court, saying that he was legally complimentary because he and his family members had resided in a region where slavery was banned. In 1850, the state court finally claimed Scott free. However, Scott"s wages had actually been withheld pending the resolution of his case, and also during that time Mrs. Emerson remarried and left she brother, john Sanford, to attend to her affairs. Mr. Sanford, do not want to salary the earlier wages fan to Scott, appealed the decision come the Missouri supreme Court. The court i turned down the reduced court"s decision and also ruled in favor of Sanford. Scott climate filed one more lawsuit in a federal circuit court declare damages against Sanford"s brother, john F.A. Sanford, for Sanford"s alleged physics abuse versus him. The jury ruled that Scott can not sue in federal court because he had currently been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott appealed to the U.S. Can be fried Court, i m sorry reviewed the instance in 1856. As result of a clerical error at the time, Sanford"s name was misspelled in court records.The can be fried Court, in an notorious opinion written by cook Justice i get it B. Taney, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to take Scott"s case due to the fact that Scott was, or in ~ least had been, a slave. First, the Court argued that they could not game Scott"s case because federal courts, consisting of the can be fried Court, space courts that "peculiar and minimal jurisdiction" and also may just hear cases brought by choose parties involving minimal claims. For example, under short article III of the U.S. Constitution, commonwealth courts might only listen cases brought by "citizens" the the joined States. The Court rule that due to the fact that Scott to be "a negro, whose ancestors to be imported into this country, and sold together slaves," and thus "
|Alex McBride is a third year legislation student at Tulane law School in NewOrleans. He is posts editor ~ above the TULANE regulation REVIEW and the 2005recipient that the ray Forrester compensation in constitution Law. In 2007, Alexwill be clerking through Judge Susan Braden ~ above the United states Court ofFederal cases in Washington.|