Slavery vs. Jim Crow essays

Slavery vs. Jim Crow essays The Dred Scott case was one, which had a major impact on bringing the nation nearer to war (Mullane 132-133). Dred Scott was a slave owned by army surgeon Dr. John Emerson, and accompanied him when he left his Missouri home to spend several years in Illinois and the Louisiana Purchase Territory (now Minnesota). Illinois at the time was a free state under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, as was the Louisiana Purchase Territory, but according to the terms of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Missouri was a slave state. After they returned to Missouri, Dr. Emerson died, and Dred Scott sued Emersons wife for his freedom. The Circuit Court of St. Louis County sided with Scott, but the Missouri Supreme Court reversed the decision by a ruling which said that just because Scott had resided in a free state, that did not make him a free man. Emersons brother, John F. A. Sanford of New York bought Scott for the purpose of bringing a case in federal court which, according to the Constitution, had the power to decide cases between citizens of different states (Mullane 132-133). However, in 1856, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of the Supreme Court delayed the case for a year to avoid giving a ruling in a presidential election year. The outcome of the eventual trial showed a deep division surrounding the issue of slavery, but the prevailing opinion was that of Chief Justice Taney who argued that Scott did not gain his freedom just by traveling into free territory, and that he could not be considered a citizen of the state of Missouri or be protected under federal law. Taney contended that slavery could not be banned by the territories and so the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional. Six other justices agreed that Scott could not be a citizen, while two justices who were anti-slavery, John McLean of Ohio and Be njamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts, declared that Scott was free once he traveled into free territory. The ver...