Momentous Decisions Essay, Research Paper
A momentous decision is an important decision, or a decision of
great consequence, that may affect a certain group of people to a
certain extent, or it may affect the majority of people in many different
ways. A momentous decision could also be an important decision
that affects the majority of the population during that certain time
period, or maybe affects the future populations to come.
Another point of view of a momentous decision is a once in a lifetime
event that happens, even if its in a fiction book. Examples of
momentous decisions vary greatly on topics and time periods. A few
examples are: the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan,
Huckleberry Finn?s deciding he would rather go to Hell then betray his
friend Jim, Rosa Park?s decision not to move to the back of the bus,
King Lear?s decision to divide his land, the famous court trial; Roe vs.
Wade, the Dred Scott decision, Romeo and Juliet?s decision to be a
couple, Solidarity?s decision to resist the government of Poland, Aung
San Suu Kyi?s decision to resist the government of Myanmar, Martin
Luther?s decision to nail his Ninety-five Theses to the door of the
Wittenburg Cathedral, the decision of the New York Times to publish
the Pentagon Papers, Richard Nixon?s decision to visit China, etc. As
shown in the examples above, there were many momentous
decisions during the past that have affected that certain time period,
or might even affect present or future time periods as well. One of
the many momentous decision that affected the mid19th century, 20th
century, and probably many more centuries to come is the Dred Scott
decision.
The Dred Scott Decision was an important ruling by the
Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of slavery. The
decision, which was made up in 1857, declared that African
American, free or slave, could claim United States citizenship. It also
stated that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the United States
territories, mainly speaking of the Midwestern territories. During the
1850?s in the United States, Southern support of slavery and Northern
opposition to it collided more violently than ever before over the case
of Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedom
on the basis of seven years of residence in a free state and a free
territory. When the outweighed proslavery Supreme Court of the
United States heard Scott?s case, they that not only was he still a
slave, but that the main law ensuring that slavery would not enter the
new Midwestern territories of the United States. This decision sent
the US into fights between the disagreeing groups. The chaos would
end only after a long and bloody civil war fought primarily over the
issue of slavery and its extension into the Midwestern territories. The
Supreme Court?s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford helped accelerate
the arrival of the American Civil War by intensifying the already tense
relationship between Northerners and Southerners.
Dred Scott was the slave of a United States Army surgeon,
John Emerson of Missouri. Missouri was a state that permitted
slavery, so there was no law that was broken. In 1834, Dred Scott
went with Emerson to live in Illinois, which also prohibited slavery.
They later lived in the Wisconsin Territory, but slavery was forbidden
by the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise was a plan
agreed upon the United States Congress in 1820 to settle the debate
over slavery in the Louisiana Purchase area. The plan temporarily
maintained the balance between free and slave states. In 1838, Dred
Scott and Emerson returned to Missouri. Emerson died five years
later, and in 1846, Dred Scott sued the surgeon?s widow for his
freedom. Unlike the states in the South, Missouri enacted slave laws
that were based upon those of Virginia and Kentucky. These laws
provided an opportunity for slaves to file suits for freedom, which
made Dred Scott?s decision completely legal.
The suits of Dred Scott and Dred Scott?s wife, Harriet, aren?t
exactly known, but a possible answer that most historians believe is
that Dred Scott?s long-time friend and childhood companion, Taylor
Blow, may have played a key role. Other historians feel the suits may
have been started by an attorney who felt he could make a large
amount of money form the case. There is also a possibility that it was
Dred Scott himself.
Scott based his suit on the argument that his former residence
in a free state and a free territory–Illinois and Wisconsin–made him a
free man. On June 30th, 1847, with Judge Alexander Hamilton
presiding, or as the head judge. Even with an ambiguous record, it
seems that Scott?s attorney, Samuel Mansfield Bay, the former
attorney general of Missouri, spoke for the slave. Mrs. Emerson was
represented by George W. Goode, a Virginia lawyer with a strong
proslavery feeling. As mentioned above, Scott?s lawyer, Bay,
established the point of Scott?s residence on free land, but besides
that Bay relied on the testimony of Samuel Russell, who told the court
that he had hired the Scotts from Mrs. Emerson, paying Mrs.
Emerson?s father, Alexander Sandford. While being cross-examined
by Goode, Russell admitted that it was actually his wife who had
made all the arrangements, and that Russell didn?t know anything
more than what his wife had told him. Since that made Scott?s case
harder to prove, the jury was told to ignore Russell?s testimony, but
that testimony proved that Dred and Harriet Scott weren?t Mrs.
Emerson?s slave at all. After the court had realized that, the jury came
up with the verdict for the defendant, which was Mrs. Emerson.
On December 2, 1847, Judge Hamilton ordered the case to be
retried, but instead of having the same trial, Mrs. Emerson?s lawyer
filled a bill to have a new trial instead. The reason for why the bill was
filled is because an error was made in the first trial. If the new trial
had been accepted, it would have been transferred to the Missouri
supreme court. Since it wasn?t, that had the retrial. As of the status
of the two sides, Mrs. Emerson wanted them to remain as their
slaves, and Dred and Harriet Scott ended up having to start all over
again. The Blows, companion of Dred Scott, hated Mrs. Emerson
and the Sandfords, so they were determined to do whatever it took to
win. Before the trial was retried, Mrs. Emerson?s family hired new
attorneys, Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris, to represent them
instead of Goode. The case was finally retired on January 12, 1850,
with Judge Hamilton preceding again. This time, the Scotts based
their argument on the fact that Mrs. Emerson had hired Dred and
Harriet out to several people, which proved that the were slaves. The
jury found the case in the Scott?s favor and declared them free. Even
though the Scott?s were free, Mrs. Emerson didn?t stop fighting. She
tried to get another retrial, but that didn?t work, so she appealed to the
Missouri Supreme Court. The attorneys from both sides signed an
agreement recognizing that the cases of D
Mrs. Emerson were identical, they would become one single case.
The facts of the case were filed on March 1850, but the court didn?t
hear the case until 1852. Part of the problem the Scotts faced with
the delay was that Missouri was beginning to feel increasing political
pressure over the question of slavery. The state found itself in an
awkward position, since it was bordered on three sides by free states.
The pressure of the free territory around Missouri made Missouri?s
proslavery legislature to guard against antislavery laws. Since
Missouri was being pressured by free territory, the state supreme
court judges who heard the case decided to reverse the previous
court?s decision and reject Scott?s claim to freedom.
In the Autumn of 1851, Judge William Scott and Judge
Hamilton R. Gamble joined Judge John F. Ryland in reconsidering
the Scott case. On March 22nd, 1852, Judge Scott handed down the
decision, which was that they favored for Mrs. Emerson. The Scotts
didn?t file a quick appeal with the Supreme Court, but instead, they
waited until Mrs. Emerson gave the Scotts to her brother, John
Sandford. On November 2nd, 1853, the Scotts filed their case
against Sandford in the Circuit Court of the United States for the
District of Missouri. The suit accused Sandford, who was a citizen of
New York, of illegally assaulting, holding, and imprisoning Dred Scot,
Harriet Scott, and their two daughters, all citizens of Missouri. This
case was then set for April 1854.
On April 7th, 1854, Sandford and his attorney, Hugh A. Garland,
challenged the court?s right to hear the case based upon the fact that
Dred Scott descended from slaves of African blood, therefore never
being a true citizen of Missouri. Judge Robert W. Wells denied the
challenge, stating that for the purpose of this case, citizenship implied
nothing more than residence in a state. After a very long legal plan,
the case finally came to trial on May 15, 1854. During the hearing,
neither Scott?s or Sandford?s lawyers called any witnesses or
introduced any evidence that had no already been presented to
previous courts. The jury returned a verdict in Sandford?s favor.
Since the trial went to quickly, Alexander Field, Scott?s attorney, filed
a bill of exceptions, which is the first step necessary to take the case
to the highest court in the land.
Scott?s work is becoming more and more difficult. He has to
find a new attorney who could argue the case before the Supreme
Court. They wanted an experienced lawyer who was willing to donate
his fee for legal services. Many months passed, adnd Scott still had
neither an attorney or the money to get the case. On Christmas Eve
of 1854, Alexander Field wrote to Montgomery Blair suggesting that
he or some other Washington attorney might serve ?the cause of
humanity? (pg. 44, The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship)
Meanwhile, the Sandfords didn?t have a hard time at all finding an
attorney. The two attorneys were Henry S. Geyer, and Reverdy
Johnson. Henry S. Geyer was a respected member of the Missouri
State Bar, and Reverdy Johnson was a former senator and attorney
general under President Zachary Taylor. Those two attorneys were
among the most respected constitutional lawyers in the country. The
written notes of Dred Scott v. Sandford was delivered to the Supreme
Court on December 20, 1854.
Scott was waiting for the Supreme Court?s decision, which were
the effects of the Kansas-Nebraska act, were beginning to take hold.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by congress in 1854. It
provided that two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska, were to be
made from the Indian land that lay west of the band of the Missouri
River, and north of 37 degrees latitude. Senator Stephen A. Douglas
of Illinois introduced the bill into Congress. Finally, on February 7th,
1856, Blair filed his summary of the case. Blair argued that when
Scott had gone to Illinois state constitution specifically forbade slavery
in that state. He argued that as soon as Scott set foot in Illinois, he
was free from slavery. Scott?s arguments consists of him being a
slave in the slave state of Missouri. Scott had traveled to the free
state of Illinois, upon which action he became free. The principle of
permanent emancipation entitled Scott to remain a free man after
returning to Missouri; once free, always free, the principle said. Scott
indeed had the right to sue for his freedom in federal court because
he was a citizen by virtue of his residence in one of the United States
of America. Sandford?s Arguments consisted of three elements: 1)
The restrictions on slavery and the Missouri Compromise were invalid
because Congress did not have the authority to decide the issue of
slavery in the territories. 2) Scott?s traveling to Illinois Territory did
not, therefore, make him a free man. #) Scott?s return to Missouri, a
slave state, meant that since he had never been a free man, he kept
his status as a slave. (pg. 54, The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and
Citizenship)
On March 6th, 1857, Taney, Chief Justice, began reading a
shortened summary of his opinion in a crowded courtroom. By May
13th, Taney?s opinion had not been released for publication. In late
May, Taney?s official opinion was released. The Supreme court had
decided once and for all that Dred Scott was still a slave and that the
Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, a finding that made it null
and void. This ruling had been long awaited and it was received by
many. All that remained of this case is the effects on society.
The impact of the Dred Scott decision spread quickly
throughout the land. From local papers, to the politicians, everyone
had an opinion to the decision and it affected them in some way.
Those opposed to slavery had been working for the release of all
slaves directed their anger towards the Court. They were determined
to see Dred Scott reversed in order to stop the spread of slavery
throughout the US Legislature. Republicans thought that by taking
over the executive and legislative branches of the government, they
could place pressure on the court to reconsider its decision.
Throughout the Civil War years, President Lincoln, who was an
abolitionist, clashed with Chief Justice Taney. During the next three
years, Taney opposed nearly all action taken by Lincoln in the name
of the federal government. In the long run, it wasn?t the decision of
the Supreme court, or the opinion of Roger Taney, nor it was the Civil
War, constitution amendment or the Emancipation Proclamation that
was the beginning of the end of slavery. It was the determination of a
highly respected man with common sense and a great determination
to fight for what he felt was right. To summarize that in one word, that
man would be Dred Scott. This event would be a mometous decision
because it affected many people then and now. Without this first step
to freedom of the slaves or African Americans, then life wouldn?t be
like it is. Instead, it would be much different, just like back then.