Thursday, September 29, 2011
Dred Scott
In 1846 in Missouri, a slave named Dred Scott sued his owner for freedom and started a process in both state and federal that lasted for over 10 years, and ultimately ended in the Supreme Court. Scott claimed that he had been living on free soil in Illinois and the Minnesota territory, and therefore he was free. The Supreme Court decided that Scott was not a citizen and therefore had no right to bring this case to federal court; and that if he was freed it would deprive his owner of property.
Question: If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, what would that have meant for slaves in the South?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
It would have meant that all the slaves in the South would be free. The slaves would all begin to sue their owners and demand freedom like Dred Scott did. There may have been possible riots from Black people to free slaves. Slave owners may have lost a lot of control of their slaves.
To slaves knowing that another slave went all the way to the US Supreme Court and sued for his freedom that they could also sue for their own freedom. Or if they are taken into a free state they would have the right to say Adios to their former owners. But that would probably mean civil war because the pro-slavery south would want to separate and abandon those rules that could take away their "property".
I think that if Dred Scott had won his freedom, other slaves might have followed his example and claim that they had been to a free state, and therefore gain their freedom. Also slaves could've claimed that they were citizens and have some of the same rights that white people had.
I think this would have meant a huge slave revolt that would force a slave and southerner war that would cause slavery to end. This is because if the north knew a slavery war was going on, they would obviously side with the slaves. with that many soldiers against the south, the slaves and the north would most likely win, therefore ending slavery.
It would have meant that if one slave could sue for his freedom, why couldn't all the other slaves sue as well? There would be riots and revolts, and eventually the south would have to give in to the slaves.
Well it would have meant that Slaves who escaped to the North would then be free forever, if using that in a court case, then the slave owners would be mad and the south would have no reason to stay in the Union, so the civil war would have started 14 years earlier. the slave masters would have to crack down on escaping slaves or not let the news of Dred scott get to the plantation. Many slaves would run away and be legally free.
A lot of slaves would sue for their freedom claiming they had been in a free country. The problem would then be that, how would you know if the slave was really telling the truth? This could lead to a lot of riot
and the south would have probably seceded earlier bringing on the civil war even sooner.
If Scott had been granted freedom, I think other slaves would sue their owners for their freedom and run away from home. They would flee to the free states with their family and friends. Also I think there would be many revolts and riots against the whites. The owners might have to take arms and there could of been a giant outbreak.
I think the slaves in the south would of been extremely angry at there slave owners and would threaten and do whatever it took to get there freedom just as Dred Scott did if the Supreme Court had granted his freedom. I also think slaves from the south would form together and go on strike and sacrifice whatever it would take to gain there freedom.I think the slaves would try to convince a war against slavery as well as getting abolitionists to support the slaves and to abolish slavery and get what the slaves wish for.
If the Supreme court had of granted Dred Scott his freedom, I believe that the slaves in the south would do as many things as they could to become free. This would include suing there owners many times, or even running away to a free state so that the second they step in that state they become free. Secondly, I believe that it would give a lot of hope to the rest of the slaves out there that they can become free and pretty easily. Lastly, I believe If Scott had been given freedom than the whole entire civil war would never had happened. I believe that because it's not the north that gave all the slaves freedom it was the supreme court therefore, the south would not be mad at the north.
The decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case highlighted the divide between the North and South regarding slavery and helped to spark the Civil War. If the Supreme Court had recognized Dred Scott as a citizen and granted him his freedom, I don't think this would have had a direct impact on the slaves in the South because they were not living in a "free" state. Many of the slaves in the South probably would have risked their lives to run away to a free state. A decision in favor of Dred Scott may have postponed the Civil War and prolonged slavery in the South even more.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, that would have meant for slaves in the South that they as like Dred Scott did, all the slaves would start to sue their owners. I think there would be many riots and revolts so the owners would eventually give into their slaves and give them freedom.
If the supreme court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, what this would have meant for the slaves in the south is that they would argue with the fact that if Dred Scott is free, and he is a slave just like me, then i should be free to. Also, they would sue for their freedom and rebel against the court.
I think that if the Supreme Court had given Dred Scott his freedom, then many other slaves with similar stories would go to the Supreme Court for freedom. I also believe that slaves would run to a free state to be free because if the Supreme Court had freed Dred Scott, they would believe in the saying "once free, always free".
This is a picture of Dred Scott.
IF the Supreme Court granted Dred Scott freedom many slaves in his situation would of just left their owners. Others could of sued for their freedom, or the most likely option that the slaves would take would be to just run away to a free state.
I believe that if Dred Scott had been granted his freedom, congress would have added anti-slavery laws stating that all blacks would be freed of their duties as slaves and more importantly, that they were to be considered American Citizens. However, though these laws would be in place, the south would try to override the laws and the slaves would rebel against them. I believe this would happen because there have been instances in our history where people have rebelled because they felt as if they were not able to take advantage of their rights as Americans.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, that would mean that all of the other slaves in the South could be free as well. So then all the slaves would start to try to escape from their owners and sue them for their freedom. Just like what Dred Scott did. If that were to happen there probably would have been a war, just like the Civil War.
If the supreme court gave Dred Scott his freedom, then other slaves might get the same idea. Other slaves would feel that if he could do it, why could they not do it. Slaves would start to leave the South and become free citizens. The South would be very upset and that would lead into the Civil War sooner rather than later.
I think that if Dred Scott won his freedom, other slaves in the South would have started to sue for their freedom. That would have caused a lot of trouble for the South, so that's one of the reasons why Dred Scott didn't win his case.
if the supreme court granted Dred Scott freedom then the rest of the slaves in the south would have riots and go to court to get freedom. if one slave gets freedom then all the rest should get freedom.
If Dred Scott had won all of the slaves would start to sue for their freedom. And if they did not win they would start to revolt against their slave owners. This would have ended up in a lot of murders and probably would start the Civil War.
I think if Dred Scott got his freedom many other slaves who had been to a free state/territory would try to sue for their freedom too. Or the slaves would just run away to a free state and then be free. This would cause revolts and riots and many slaves would get their freedom.
If Dred Scott successfully won his freedom then a lot of other slaves in the same territory would sue. I think that would of caused many problems and a lot of fights and riots in the south. If all the other slaves lost then they might run away or even starting fighting with their slave owners.
If Dred Scott won his case at the US Suprem Court.He would be a free man. Also, it would mean that the slaves would try to escape more and just run to the free states. instead of a different country. Or other slaves might have sewed for there freedom and say that there were in free states.
If Dred Scott got his freedom it would mean that all of the slaves would start to sued their owners for their freedom. It would start riots and eventually all of the slaves would have their freedom.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom then many other slaves would have tried to follow in Dred Scotts footsteps in trying to earn their freedom. Slaves would have tried to sue their owners. Another thing that slaves would have tried to do would be to escape from their owners and run off to a free state in hope of not being caught. Also if the Supreme court had said yes to Dred Scotts freedom, then the other slaves in the south that have traveled to a free state would be angry and this would start the Civil War.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, this would have meant for slaves in the South that if they traveled in to a free state then
they would sue for their freedom. Also, the slaves would probably start many riots throughout the south and cause manydisruptions. Also, maybe this would cause the Civil War to start even earlier than it originally did.
If the supreme court had gave Dred Scott freedom, the slaves in the south who had similar arguments to Scott would have sewed to be free because they are probably thinking if this guy can sew for his freedom then why can't we. Then when they sew (assuming that they do) there would be many fights and rebellion from the slaves.
Which would not end well.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, then it would have created lots of arguments on freedom. For example, if Dred Scott was pronounced free then, a lot of enslaved slaves would do exactly what Dred Scott did and declare freedom by sueing their owners, and would eventually ruin the flow of slavery. In other words, it meant the South would not be making any more money off slaves and have a major economic downturn.
If the supreme court ruled that Dred Scott was a free man, it would have caused mayhem in the South. If slaves found out that they could become free by simply walking into a free state or territory, salves even remotely close to free states would run into freedom and their owners could do nothing about it. This would have also negatively effected the US economy. In addition, this would have put the idea that slaves are people and not property, which would have caused numerous rebellions in the south. It would have been a giant step forward for African American rights, but the problems that would have followed would greatly outweigh the triumph.
I think that this would make other slaves want to sue for their freedom. They might try to head north to gain freedom. Once in the north, they might argue that they have the same rights as white people. Since slavery was so important to the southern economy, the overall economy could crash at an alarming rate.African- Americans may also try to revolt if they are not allowed to become free like Dred Scott.
If the supreme court had made the decision to make Dred Scott a free man, the civil war would have started earlier than it did. The simple fact that Dred Scott, a slave, was in the supreme court was a upset to the south. Are slaves not property? If Dred Scott was already suing the supreme court, does that means that he is a citizen? If Dred Scott was proclaimed free that means that he was a citizen. The slaves in the south, would all immediately start thinking if they were citizens as well and would demand citizenship from there owners.This would start slave riots all over the south.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, then most likely other slaves in the south would have also sued for their freedom. Also, they could have just ran away to a "Free State". There could have been many consequences to the outcome though.
If Dred Scott was granted his freedom by the Supreme Court, that would have meant that all of the slaves in the south that have been in a free state would also be alowed to sue for there freedom. This is because if Dred Scott had been granted his freedom, the Supreme Court would be saying he is a citizen. Therefore any other slave that had been taken into a free state could argue they were a citizen and were free. Although many of the slaves could argue they were free, it would also make many of the slave owners not bring their slaves to a free state.
If the supreme court granted Dred Scott his freedom, then the other slaves would claim that they had freedom if they went to a free state. I also believe that the slaves would have done the same thing Scott did and sue their owners. This would have led to a revolt between the north and south that would abolish slavery.
If Dred Scott had won his freedom the slaves in the South would have tried to go to free land. Slaves may have thought that running away to a free state would allow them to sue for their freedom. On the other hand, Dred Scott's case was different, because he was brought to a free state by his owner. Running away from your slave owner to a free state was illegal. Furthermore, slave owners would do anything to prevent their slaves from entering free states by running away. If Dred Scott had won his freedom, slaves would have a much stricter life.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, then the slaves in the South could try to flee into the North. Once they were free, they could sue for their own freedom.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, for the slaves in the South, I think this would have meant to them that they could do the same-either runaway to a free state and demand their rights to freedom or sue their owners in order to gain it. This also could have caused huge slave revolts and riots, maybe even leading to brutal wars between slave owners and their slaves.
If Dred Socott had been granted his freedom instead of being denied it. For slaves in the south this would mean they could set foot on a free state or territory and they would be considered free. Also if Dred Scott was granted his freedom there would have been many slave riots. Also many other slaves would attempt to sue their owners in court for their freedom. By losing slaves that could have also ruined the economy in America.
If the Supreme Court had granted Dred Scott his freedom, many other slaves would have also sewed in expectations of their own freedom due to the similarity of their own cases. So if every slave's freedom was granted like Scott's, in order to prevent controversy, then there wouldn't be any slaves to perform demanding agricultural labor. Therefore, a sharp decline in the southern economy would result. The Supreme Court probably knew that slavery was wrong but still kept it in practice because it was producing a lot of money for them.
For slaves in the south it would have meant possible freedom. It would mean that all states would have to follow the same law Missouri followed, and all slaves that had been to a free state would have been free. It could have also caused a slave revolt, or many other slaves following Dred Scott's example and also suing for their own freedom.
If the Supreme Court had made the decision to grant Dred Scott his freedom, I believe that the outcome would result in a severe affect on the rest of the country, and more specifically, the slaves in the South. For starters, many slaves would most likely mimic Dred Scott's actions by suing for their own freedom, and, due to the conditions of Scott's case, the Supreme Court would have no choice but to grant said slaves freedom as well. In time, more and more slaves would gain their freedom, and slavery numbers would drastically decrease until there were little to no slaves in the South. This would, of course, cause even more controversy throughout the United States, and would most likely cause the Civil War to occur years before it initially began in our history.
If Dred Scott won his freedom, I think that slaves in the the South would have traveled to a free state and then sued for their freedom as well and the slaves that sued might be freed as well.
If Dred Scott DID win his freedom, I would assume that all the other slaves in the South would try to escape from being a slave. And maybe even go to court like Dred Scott also.
I think that if Dred Scott had won freedom from the Supreme Court than many other slaves would sue because they probably would have a similar story as Dred Scott. If he won many owners would lose control of their slaves and then lose their slaves entirely.
I believe that if Dred Scott would have won his freedom, many other slaves would follow in his path. The other free slaves, would try and sue for there rights as free African Americans.
All the slaves in the South would have been free. The slaves would revolt and the South would have seceded sooner. Riots and scuffles would break out everywhere in the country between Northerners and Southerners.
It would have meant that because Dred Scott was freed for going on free soil all of the other slaves who have ever been to a free state would have to be released by their owners and become free. It would also mean that more slaves would try and get to these free states whether with their owner or without them, they would try and escape to on of these states so that if they made it, their owners couldn't take them back and force them to keep on working for them because if they did they could just do the same as Dred Scott did and sued their owners for forced labor when they where free slaves, and could have started the downfall of slavery earlier than it did.
I believe that if Dred scott was granted freedom all of the other slaves would sue for there freedom. Also slaves would go to free states and say they were free. This also could have led to a huge slave riot.
Post a Comment