Dred Scott V. Sandford
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was about Scott who was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state where slavery was forbidden) with his master Dr. John Emerson, an Army Surgeon. In 1836, Emerson moved with Scott from Illinois to Fort Snelling, in present – day Minnesota, well north of 36 degrees 30’ in old Louisiana territory, where slavery had been banned by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. In 1838, Emerson returned to Missouri with Scott. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. The lower court held for Scott, but the state Supreme Court reversed the decision in 1852 claiming whatever Scott’s legal status outside Missouri, he remained a slave under Missouri law. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Where the Supreme Court denied Scott’s request to be a free man and ruled in a 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules and also that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States, ruling an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional for the second time in its history.
In my opinion, honestly, this was sincerely the worst decision in the American history. Like Nussbaum (under the disgust perspective) - I am highly "disgusted" by the decision of the Justices. 7-2 decision, not even a 5-4 (something closer) it's highly disappointing how humans can label other human like themselves properties, a second hand citizen, minorities and all sort. Just disgusting!
No comments:
Post a Comment