Dred Scott (1799 – September 17, 1858), was a slave in the United States who sued unsuccessfully for his freedom in the famous Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1856. His case was based on the fact that he and his wife Harriet were slaves, but had lived in states and territories where slavery was illegal, including Illinois and Wisconsin, which was then part of the Illinois Territory. The court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and that therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not affect his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, since reaching that result would deprive Scott's owner of his property.
An example of how Dred Scott story relates to events that occur in today world; includes Randy Squires, a racially discriminated former police man. He filed a lawsuit against the department, alleging racial discrimination and harassment by a fellow officer. Squires accuses Atcheson, a white-caucasian male and a lieutenant in the Environmental Crimes Unit (ECU), Warrant Squad and the Paternity Warrant Squad, of discriminating against him on the basis of the color of his skin and also harassing him while on the job. In both cases you can see that even people of high authority, like the Judge Taney in Dred’s Scott case and officers in Randy Squire’s case. Each authority figure had racism in their hearts, and let their racist feeling on others in different shapes and forms; whether be verbal, physical, or using the law to their advantage.
There are 2 biases inherited in the research of Dred Scott. The first bias includes how Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they set foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the Missouri Compromise because, based on the court’s logic, a white slave owner can purchase slaves in a slave state and brings his slaves to states where slavery is illegal without losing rights to the slave. The bias in that example is the court based their decision on how they felt the case should go, instead of taking a neutral view by having a compromise with the Missouri compromise of some sort. The second bias includes, how congress ruled the slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property. Chief Justice Roger B Taney delivered the majority opinion after Dred Scott lost his case, for being freed from slavery. He stated that ”Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Declaration of Independence.” The second bias made is ethnic bias, the court has ruled the black people only, are not citizens of the United States.
There are 2 difficult questions raised by the historical research of Dred Scott. Calvin C Chaffee was an abolitionist who married Irene Emerson. Irene Emerson had a slave called Dred Scott, though Chaffee did not know. When Chaffee discovered that Scott was their slave, he returned him to his original owners the blow family. The first difficult question is why Chaffee an abolitionist, didn’t free Dred Scott from being a slave? When John Emerson bought Scott as a slave, they traveled extensively in Illinois and Wisconsin Territories, where the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery. The Second difficult question is why didn’t Scott run from his master, and live in a different area? Since the area they lived stated that slavery was illegal.
In this essay I discovered that Dred Scott could not have obtained freedom, because he was considered property of a white American man. I learned that there racial cases today, just like in Dred Scott’s time. There were questions I wanted to know about dealt with freedom from slavery. In Dred Scott case there were many biases mainly from the court’s decision, which stated that all black people could not sue because they were citizens. I hope you enjoyed this thoughtfully written essay.
10 comments:
wow your right i can believe that irene's husband was against slavery and when he did find out he returned Dred Scott back to his orignal owers? i mean thats totally unreal of irene's husband..even thought there were some real free states and slaves would escape but either ended up succeeding or were capture. but the part that totally confuses me is if the slaves reached the free states then why werent they aloud to be free?
Nciely done. The use of the case with the police officer was a nice touch. The blog's structure was kind of confusing though. It didn't really flow from one paragraph to the next. I'd suggest working on that.
Wow, I feel the same way. I agree with your logic of why Irene's husband didn't let Dred go and give him his freedom since he is an abolitionist. That really baffles me. There are always people in position of high authority who have personal biases. The outcome of the Dred Scott v. sanford case should have been overturned but it didn't and that's what really caused chaos between slaves and the owners. Nice job using the other information such as Irene, the dates, and using modern world examples. Yet, I agree with hellfirequeen979...you need to work on your blog's structure and make the paragraphs flow more freely. Nice use of words and keep it up!
Ian your blog is nicely done. I liked it. I really enjoyed reading it. I didn't know that so many things had took place in the Dred Scott case. I didn't know it was so serious. I do and sincerly stetch that you work on how you construct the start of your paragraph. Other than that great job!
hey, not bad! i heard about the Dred Scott case almost a milion time and never once did i hear about what Irene and her husband did. I couldn't believe that Irene's husband returned Scott back to his owner when he could have give him freedom since Irene's husband was an abolitionist. I also agreed with you when the judges decided to vote against Scott's right to become a citizen that their bias infleuenced them. Even though slavery was over and black and white integrated, people in America are still angry about black people given equal rights as any other American so hate-crimes are happening in this country. You can change the society but you can change the way people are feeling inside. Nice blog!
Wow this was probably one of the supreme court's most controversial rulings. I like how you used this case as something to reference to another similar case. I never even heard of Randy Squires' case, it sounds like he had it pretty bad as well.I'm sure there are plenty more cases like these two or situations where people were getting treated unjustly and didn't say anything.
Hey ian. I really liked your blog. It was interesting. I never knew so much took place in the Dred Scott case. I really learned a lot about the case just from reading your blog . It seemed like you really took your time and thought it out.
I’ve heard of the Dred Scott case but I didn’t know all of that stuff took place. It was unreal that the husband gave up the slave back to the owner. Its all confusing. Very good essay Ian. A+
Nice post. I agree that the Dred Scott case is very significant in the civil rights movement. He wanted to gain American citizenship but was denied because of the color of his skin. It's a good thing that the case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas revived the idea of equal protection under the law in 1954. Even though Dred Scott was most likely viewed as an 'outcast' for wanting American citizenship, he definitely was bold for standing up for what he truly believed in.
Dred Scott was a big deal. Nice that you put that in your blog. Ellen was right when she said that it was confusing to follow. It's kind of messed up that an abolitionist didnt free a slave when they had the chance to. hypocrite...
Post a Comment