The Analysis of the Dred Scott Case
HIST1002 - United States History II
University of Cincinnati
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
In the year 1854, slavery was not an uncommon depletion of the black population because they
were not offered the same rights as a white man would have been. The document being
reviewed is The case of Dred Scott in the United States Supreme Court. The full opinions of
Chief Justice Taney and Justice Curtis, and abstracts of the opinions of the other judges; with
an analysis of the points ruled, and some concluding observations. Which is a compile
compromised by the Library of Congress in order to state the opinions of the United States
ChiefJustice Taney and Justice Curtis, and the abstracts of the opinions of the other judges who
partook in the case for Dred Scott’s freedom. The case was caused after the prohibition of
slavery by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and state laws, which had also been barred by the
Missouri Compromise. It led to Missouri becoming a free state when slavery was prohibited;
directing Dr. John Emerson’s slave, Dred Scott, to sue for his freedom. Dr. John Emerson was
accompanied by Scott on his travels from Missouri to Illinois; however, when they had returned
to the state of Missouri, Scott had decided that because he dwelt in a free state, he had also the
right to be free. Dred Scott was able to take his case to the Supreme Court of the United States;
where nine justices each made an individual opinion about his situation after they analyzed the
main three questions of his case. The three questions were: “Could a black person be a citizen
and therefore sue in federal court? Did residence in a free state make Scott free? Did Congress
possess the power to prohibit slavery in a territory? (Foner 493).” The document reveals that
Dred Scott was not offered: an opinion, rights, or freedom because he was of African descent
anddid not have citizenship.
When Scott’s case was brought to the attention of the Supreme Court, he was not given an
opinion in his own fight for freedom because the nation’s founders had said that the population
of blacks would never be a part of the United States political system. The authors of Pendery
3this document were justified for Scott’s case because of their held authority in the U. S. Court
System, in which they were able to provide reliable knowledge due to participating daily in the
trial and hearing the pleas of each defendant. In the document being analyzed; one of the
justices stated that Scott, by the act of the Constitution was not to ever be made a member of
the politicalfamily of the United States Supreme Court system. This was because no state, “by
any act or lawof its own, passed since the adoption of the Constitution,” were to introduce any
new persons (pg. 9). They were very strict in abiding by the laws of the Constitution; and if it
stated that they could no longer present a new member into their governmental community,
they were to listen and not fight it. Though, they may have questioned whether or not they
should trial the laws of the Constitution, in the end Scott was not given a say because the
document aforementioned that no one was to be, “embraced in this new political family (pg.
9).” This lead to Scott not being able to fight for his independence in the courts due to not being
a citizen of the State of Missouri.Therefore, since he was not able to voice his opinion about
why even though he was not a citizenand why he should receive his rights, he ultimately lost
his case. Scott was not offered the same rights of a white man in court because, the majority of
justices believed that blacks were not to be given rights that a white man should respect.
Supreme Chief Justice Taney had, “declared that only white persons could be citizens of the
United States (Foner 493).” The justices were to give an unbiased decision and had no reason
to not tell the whole truth during the length of the case. However, it shows that they were in
favor of the act of slavery, and not in favor of granting Scott his freedom. In the document, it
was stated that, “he may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State (pg. 9).” The Supreme
Court had planned to give him the rights of a state; though, it was not the state that he currently
resided in, which happened to be a free state. This was due to the Constitution of the United
States declaring that a person’s rights were to be confined to the borders of a certain state,
which gave Scott no rights or opportunities in any other state beyond what was, “secured to
him by the laws of nations and the comity of States (pg. 9).” If he were to be given his freedom,
other states couldchoose to not acknowledge it and he could be imprisoned or forced to leave
the state. The justices insisted that he should not be given the rights of a citizen because it
would negatively affect their reputation. They also did not find it in them that they held the
power of a single state, “to make him a citizen of the United States (pg. 9).” Concluding, Dred
Scott was not given any rights due to the courts not being able to justify his citizenship. The
decision was made in March of 1867, the denouement of the case was to reject Scott’s plea for
freedom because it was stated that he had no right to sue because he was not a citizen. Justice
Taney stated that many of the nation’s founders insisted that the black population were not to
be offered freedom because they, “descended from different ancestors and lack[ed] a history of
freedom (Foner 493).” Due to lacking a history of freedom, the court saw that if they were to
grant him freedom, it would affect all states without their knowledge of the situation. The
justices tried to decide if they were to grant him this freedom; would they, “immediately clothe
him with all the privileges of a citizen in any other state, and in its own courts (pg. 9)?” They
decided that his freedom was unlikely to be maintained if he were to enter an un-free state;
which, led them to believe that it was a strong decision for him to be reduced to slavery for his
own advantage. The authors motivations, after realizing the fate of his case, were to make sure
that he was not granted the freedom that the common white man was. They insisted that he was
to remain a slave, because the constitution could not be bothered to help entitle the African race
with the simple rights necessary to live a free live. Therefore, Scott was not offered his freedom
after his trial in the courts, due to not having the basic rights of a citizen of the United States.In
conclusion, Dred Scott was not granted the freedom or rights he deserved by the Supreme
Court. The courts Justice’s had decided that even though Dred Scott resided in a free state he
was not to be granted freedom. It was because he was not a citizen and could not originally sue
in federal court, so that marked the end of his fight. However, he died a free man on the eve of
the Civil War, after he and his wife were emancipated by his last owner. He was unfortunately
only able to enjoy the freedom given to him for a few years. Dred Scott had continued to fight
for his freedom despite that he appeared to be only a slave due to, “notwithstanding his
residence in Illinois and Missouri (pg. 101).” Therefore, Scott may have notreceived his
freedom from the courts; but, the document revealed to remain a reliable source throughout his
trial. If I were to officially analyze another document, I would prefer to look at a memoir of the
thoughts of Dred Scott himself. In order to, look at the point of view from a slave that did
everything he could to fight for his freedom through the courts of justice.
