Details
Nothing to say, yet
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to The Dred Scott v. Sanford case podcast by Fleurdgine Sterlin MP3 song. The Dred Scott v. Sanford case podcast song from Fleurdgine Sterlin is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 04:26. This high-quality MP3 track has 192 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 18 Sep 2023. Stream and download The Dred Scott v. Sanford case podcast by Fleurdgine Sterlin for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
The podcast discusses the Dred Scott v Sanford case in 1857. Dred Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom after being taken to free states. He argued that he should remain free based on the Missouri Compromise. However, the Supreme Court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens and could not sue in federal court. They also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, further entrenching slavery. This decision sparked controversy and eventually led to the Civil War. The ruling was later overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments. Hi I'm Fleur Jean and I'll be a host for this podcast today and we're going to talk about the Dred Scott v Sanford case which took place in 1857 and that the main issue was that slaves were not citizen and cannot sue. So this case is about a slave person called Dred Scott and his family that sued John Sanford who was his owner for their freedom in 1840 century in Missouri. He was purchased in Missouri and then bought to Illinois which is a free non-slave state. He later moved with his enslaver to present-day Minnesota where slavery had been recently prohibited and then moved back to Missouri. After his owner died he had left all his property to his wife which is Mrs. Emerson. Then Scott had became her slave because they were considered as property back in the days. Scott sued for his freedom in Missouri circuit court where he based his argument on the ministry compromise which prohibited slavery in Illinois. He argued that when Emerson bought him and his family to Illinois they became free and could not be re-enslaved when they returned to Missouri. He went to the circuit court where the jury had that his argument were valid and that he should go free and then the Missouri state court overturned that decision declaring that Scott was still enslaved. Scott's main argument was that the Missouri compromise all states and territories north of the boundary were free states so when Emerson took him to Illinois he became free and could not be re-enslaved even if he went back to a slave state. He became free forever. The constitution does not explicitly state that black people either enslaved or free cannot be citizens. He was born in the United States which make him a citizen. He also said that many states had laws that said when an enslaved person was moved to a free state they became free. During this time there was a doctrine that said once free always free. So since Ford's argument was that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional the fifth amendment to the United States constitution prohibits the government from taking away a person's property without due process. This means that a person has the right to thread judicial hearings before their property is taken away. Therefore the enslaved people owned by Emerson could not be taken away without due process because they were considered property. One of the rights guaranteed by the constitution is the right of free movement meaning citizens can travel wherever they want within the United States. Enslaved people obviously do not have the right to travel where they want therefore they cannot be citizens. All this God wanted was to be recognized as a free man and have his freedom legally acknowledged but the United States Supreme Court and his ruling say that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and cannot suit in federal court. In March 6, 1857, seven to two justices voted in the majority who were Justice Tenney, Nelson, Wayne, Ketron, Daniel, Grier, and Campbell and it was written by Chief Justice Reggie B. Tenney. Their opinion meant that enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and could not expect any protection from the federal government or the court and that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a federal court. So the Stockholm court declared that the Ministry of Compromise to be unconstitutional and meant that Congress had no power to forbid or abolish slavery in the territories. So their decision was basically to keep up slavery in the United States and to deny the legality of black citizenship in America. Immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, many people thought a judge cut decision as a way to expand slavery throughout the country. Northern free southern slave states and the political parties that represented them just four years after the decision, the Civil War began. After the Civil War, the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified. Those amendments overturned the judge's ruling. Thank you.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
