Dred Scott CaseEssay Preview: Dred Scott CaseReport this essayThroughout history there have been very few court cases that have divided the nation by a single decision like the Dred Scott Case. This controversial case affected the US greatly leading up to the Civil War and had an immense part in shaping the country as it is today. The Dred Scott Decision was a pivotal case which started as Dred Scott seeking to gain his freedom, and amplified into a mass affair. The death of Scotts former owner drove him to try and buy his freedom from his owners heirs, unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful. Aspiring to be a free man, Scott took his case to the courts, the case of Dred v Stanford would go down as “a major turning point in American Slavery” (Corwin 52).
During the course of this trial, many people of that time who were members of the Dred Scott group met on the courthouse steps to hear their case before a packed room, which was filled to overflowing with Dred Scott supporters. Despite the success of the case, a major change occured in this nation, such as legal battles and civil rights legislation. With this change and many other developments, there emerged a consensus among the Dred Scott supporters that a law should be built to allow for the equal protection of a person right to be able to express his opinion at any time without fear of being charged with defamation for the words he was speaking. The idea of a law to allow these issues to be brought to the attention of a lawyer and in such a case would have been unthinkable in the days of Civil War, when it was seen as the only option available. However, this change was also necessary to get the legal system on the correct side of the issue, in an effort to protect one of the founders of the United States from the worst possible things he could have done. As this was happening one of the most influential politicians in American history had died and it was only the last moments of his life that the system could have fully appreciated his great contributions. If this precedent to a time when civil liberties should be protected could not be followed it would be difficult to imagine the Supreme Court of the United States not recognizing a common cause where the best interests of the United States could benefit from it. So, without this fundamental shift, it would be difficult for citizens to reach the decision by themselves and many could become entangled in the situation until the Supreme Court of the United States recognized this common cause. The result of this event would be the end of the legal system as we know it at the moment, but to have a change in doctrine and policy that will allow our courts to consider a question that is still unresolved is something to be taken as precedent. Today, Dred Scott v. Stanford is the law for the nation in the United States.
Wikipedia
(c)
RAW Paste Data
Introduction
Dred Scott CaseEssay Preview: Dred Scott CaseReport this essayThroughout history there have been very few court cases that have divided the nation by a single decision like the Dred Scott Decision. This controversial case affected the US greatly leading up to the Civil War and had an immense part in shaping the country as it is today. The Dred Scott Decision was a pivotal case which started as Dred Scott seeking to gain his freedom, and amplified into a mass affair. The death of Scotts former owner drove him to try and buy his freedom from his owners heirs, unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful. Aspiring to be a free man, Scott took
During the course of this trial, many people of that time who were members of the Dred Scott group met on the courthouse steps to hear their case before a packed room, which was filled to overflowing with Dred Scott supporters. Despite the success of the case, a major change occured in this nation, such as legal battles and civil rights legislation. With this change and many other developments, there emerged a consensus among the Dred Scott supporters that a law should be built to allow for the equal protection of a person right to be able to express his opinion at any time without fear of being charged with defamation for the words he was speaking. The idea of a law to allow these issues to be brought to the attention of a lawyer and in such a case would have been unthinkable in the days of Civil War, when it was seen as the only option available. However, this change was also necessary to get the legal system on the correct side of the issue, in an effort to protect one of the founders of the United States from the worst possible things he could have done. As this was happening one of the most influential politicians in American history had died and it was only the last moments of his life that the system could have fully appreciated his great contributions. If this precedent to a time when civil liberties should be protected could not be followed it would be difficult to imagine the Supreme Court of the United States not recognizing a common cause where the best interests of the United States could benefit from it. So, without this fundamental shift, it would be difficult for citizens to reach the decision by themselves and many could become entangled in the situation until the Supreme Court of the United States recognized this common cause. The result of this event would be the end of the legal system as we know it at the moment, but to have a change in doctrine and policy that will allow our courts to consider a question that is still unresolved is something to be taken as precedent. Today, Dred Scott v. Stanford is the law for the nation in the United States.
Wikipedia
(c)
RAW Paste Data
Introduction
Dred Scott CaseEssay Preview: Dred Scott CaseReport this essayThroughout history there have been very few court cases that have divided the nation by a single decision like the Dred Scott Decision. This controversial case affected the US greatly leading up to the Civil War and had an immense part in shaping the country as it is today. The Dred Scott Decision was a pivotal case which started as Dred Scott seeking to gain his freedom, and amplified into a mass affair. The death of Scotts former owner drove him to try and buy his freedom from his owners heirs, unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful. Aspiring to be a free man, Scott took
During the course of this trial, many people of that time who were members of the Dred Scott group met on the courthouse steps to hear their case before a packed room, which was filled to overflowing with Dred Scott supporters. Despite the success of the case, a major change occured in this nation, such as legal battles and civil rights legislation. With this change and many other developments, there emerged a consensus among the Dred Scott supporters that a law should be built to allow for the equal protection of a person right to be able to express his opinion at any time without fear of being charged with defamation for the words he was speaking. The idea of a law to allow these issues to be brought to the attention of a lawyer and in such a case would have been unthinkable in the days of Civil War, when it was seen as the only option available. However, this change was also necessary to get the legal system on the correct side of the issue, in an effort to protect one of the founders of the United States from the worst possible things he could have done. As this was happening one of the most influential politicians in American history had died and it was only the last moments of his life that the system could have fully appreciated his great contributions. If this precedent to a time when civil liberties should be protected could not be followed it would be difficult to imagine the Supreme Court of the United States not recognizing a common cause where the best interests of the United States could benefit from it. So, without this fundamental shift, it would be difficult for citizens to reach the decision by themselves and many could become entangled in the situation until the Supreme Court of the United States recognized this common cause. The result of this event would be the end of the legal system as we know it at the moment, but to have a change in doctrine and policy that will allow our courts to consider a question that is still unresolved is something to be taken as precedent. Today, Dred Scott v. Stanford is the law for the nation in the United States.
Wikipedia
(c)
RAW Paste Data
Introduction
Dred Scott CaseEssay Preview: Dred Scott CaseReport this essayThroughout history there have been very few court cases that have divided the nation by a single decision like the Dred Scott Decision. This controversial case affected the US greatly leading up to the Civil War and had an immense part in shaping the country as it is today. The Dred Scott Decision was a pivotal case which started as Dred Scott seeking to gain his freedom, and amplified into a mass affair. The death of Scotts former owner drove him to try and buy his freedom from his owners heirs, unfortunately this attempt was unsuccessful. Aspiring to be a free man, Scott took
In order to gain insight on the case, it is pertinent to understand the life that Dred Scott lived. Scott was born into slavery in 1795 in Southampton County, Virginia. As property of slave owner Peter Blow, Scott was able to travel with the Blow family when they relocated from Huntsville, Alabama to St. Louis Missouri. In 1832, after the death of Peter Blow, Scott was sold to John Emerson, a doctor who was serving in the US army. As John Emersons body servant or valet, Scott was able to travel to places such as Fort Armstrong at Rock Island in Illinois and Wisconsin where he spent nearly a dozen years. While traveling through these “free” territories, Dred Scott met a slave from Virginia by the name of Harriet Robinson. In 1836 Robinsons owner Major Lawrence Taliaferro, an Indian agent and justice if the peace, married her to Dred Scott and transferred her ownership over to Dr. Emerson so the two could remain together. Throughout the next several decades the Scotts were transferred to various states. In the process they gave birth to two children, Eliza and Lizzie Scott. This is around the time that Mr. Scott changed his name from Sam to Dred and his master, John Emerson married Irene Sanford in Louisiana.
In 1843 John Emerson passed away, and Dred Scott and his family were hired out by Mrs. John Emerson to work for other families in St. Louis. Then on April 6, 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom, although it is unclear why he didnt do so while he was living in free territories. Nonetheless with the financial help of the Blow family, the support of John Anderson, the Scotts minister, and two lawyers Scott filed a petition with the St. Louis courts in a trial which would, “span the next eleven years” (Washington University Gateway). Although Scott did not win the case, he was granted a second trial by the ruling judge to hearsay evidence, so three years later he went back to trial. This trial seemed to be a complete turnaround from the first. “This time a jury decided the Scotts should have their freedom because they did live in free states for certain amount of time, so under the Missouri doctrine of “once free, always free”