Momentous Decisions Essay, Research PaperA momentous determination is an of import determination, or a determination ofgreat effect, that may impact a certain group of people to acertain extent, or it may impact the bulk of people in many differentways. A momentous determination could besides be an of import determinationthat affects the bulk of the population during that certain clipperiod, or possibly affects the future populations to come.Another point of position of a momentous determination is a one time in a life-timeevent that happens, even if its in a fiction book. Examples ofmomentous determinations vary greatly on subjects and clip periods. A fewillustrations are: the determination to drop the atomic bomb on Japan,Huckleberry Finn? s make up one’s minding he would instead travel to Hell so betray hisfriend Jim, Rosa Park? s determination non to travel to the dorsum of the coach,King Lear? s determination to split his land, the celebrated tribunal test ; Roe V.Wade, the Dred Scott determination, Romeo and Juliet? s determination to be atwosome, Solidarity? s determination to defy the authorities of Poland, AungSan Suu Kyi? s determination to defy the authorities of Myanmar, MartinLuther? s determination to nail his Ninety-five Thesiss to the door of theWittenburg Cathedral, the determination of the New York Times to printthe Pentagon Papers, Richard Nixon? s determination to see China, etc.

Asshown in the illustrations above, there were many momentousdeterminations during the yesteryear that have affected that certain clip period,or might even impact nowadays or future clip periods every bit good. One ofthe many momentous determination that affected the mid19th century, 20thcentury, and likely many more centuries to come is the Dred Scottdetermination.The Dred Scott Decision was an of import opinion by theSupreme Court of the United States on the issue of bondage.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Thedetermination, which was made up in 1857, declared that AfricanAmerican, free or break one’s back, could claim United States citizenship. It besidesstated that Congress could non forbid bondage in the United Statesdistricts, chiefly talking of the Midwestern districts. During the1850? s in the United States, Southern support of bondage and Northernresistance to it collided more violently than of all time before over the instanceof Dred Scott, a black slave from Missouri who claimed his freedomon the footing of seven old ages of abode in a free province and a freedistrict.

When the outweighed proslavery Supreme Court of theUnited States heard Scott? s instance, they that non merely was he still aslave, but that the chief jurisprudence guaranting that bondage would non come in thenew Midwestern districts of the United States. This determination sentthe US into battles between the differing groups. The pandemonium wouldterminal merely after a long and bloody civil war fought chiefly over theissue of bondage and its extension into the Midwestern districts. TheSupreme Court? s opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford helped speed upthe reaching of the American Civil War by escalating the already tenserelationship between Northerners and Southerners.Dred Scott was the slave of a United States Army sawbones,John Emerson of Missouri. Missouri was a province that permittedbondage, so there was no jurisprudence that was broken. In 1834, Dred Scottwent with Emerson to populate in Illinois, which besides prohibited bondage.

They subsequently lived in the Wisconsin Territory, but bondage was outby the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise was a programagreed upon the United States Congress in 1820 to settle the argumentover bondage in the Louisiana Purchase country. The program temporarilymaintained the balance between free and slave provinces. In 1838, DredScott and Emerson returned to Missouri. Emerson died five old agessubsequently, and in 1846, Dred Scott sued the sawbones? s widow for hisfreedom. Unlike the provinces in the South, Missouri enacted slave Torahsthat were based upon those of Virginia and Kentucky.

These Torahsprovided an chance for slaves to register suits for freedom, whichmade Dred Scott? s determination wholly legal.The suits of Dred Scott and Dred Scott? s married woman, Harriet, aren? Tprecisely known, but a possible reply that most historiographers believe isthat Dred Scott? s long-time friend and childhood comrade, TaylorBlow, may hold played a cardinal function. Other historiographers feel the suits mayhave been started by an lawyer who felt he could do a bigsum of money signifier the instance.

There is besides a possibility that it wasDred Scott himself.Scott based his suit on the statement that his former abodein a free province and a free district & # 8211 ; Illinois and Wisconsin & # 8211 ; made him afree adult male. On June 30th, 1847, with Judge Alexander Hamiltonpresiding, or as the caput justice. Even with an equivocal record, itseems that Scott? s lawyer, Samuel Mansfield Bay, the formerlawyer general of Missouri, spoke for the slave. Mrs. Emerson wasrepresented by George W. Goode, a Virginia attorney with a strongproslavery feeling. As mentioned above, Scott? s attorney, Bay,established the point of Scott? s abode on free land, but besidesthat Bay relied on the testimony of Samuel Russell, who told the tribunalthat he had hired the Scotts from Mrs.

Emerson, paying Mrs.Emerson? s male parent, Alexander Sandford. While being cross-examinedby Goode, Russell admitted that it was really his married woman who hadmade all the agreements, and that Russell didn? T know anythingmore than what his married woman had told him. Since that made Scott? s instanceharder to turn out, the jury was told to disregard Russell? s testimony, butthat testimony proved that Dred and Harriet Scott weren? t Mrs.

Emerson? s slave at all. After the tribunal had realized that, the jury cameup with the finding of fact for the suspect, which was Mrs. Emerson.

On December 2, 1847, Judge Hamilton ordered the instance to beretried, but alternatively of holding the same test, Mrs. Emerson? s attorneyfilled a measure to hold a new test alternatively. The ground for why the measure wasfilled is because an mistake was made in the first test. If the new testhad been accepted, it would hold been transferred to the Missourisupreme tribunal. Since it wasn? T, that had the retrial.

As of the positionof the two sides, Mrs. Emerson wanted them to stay as theirslaves, and Dred and Harriet Scott ended up holding to get down all overonce more. The Blows, comrade of Dred Scott, hated Mrs. Emersonand the Sandfords, so they were determined to make whatever it took towin. Before the test was retried, Mrs.

Emerson? s household hired newlawyers, Hugh A. Garland and Lyman D. Norris, to stand for themalternatively of Goode. The instance was eventually retired on January 12, 1850,with Judge Hamilton predating once more. This clip, the Scotts basedtheir statement on the fact that Mrs. Emerson had hired Dred andHarriet out to several people, which proved that the were slaves. Thejury found the instance in the Scott? s favour and declared them free. Eventhough the Scott? s were free, Mrs.

Emerson didn? t halt combat. Shetried to acquire another retrial, but that didn? t work, so she appealed to theMissouri Supreme Court. The lawyers from both sides signed anunderstanding acknowledging that the instances of Druddy and Harriet Scott andMrs. Emerson were indistinguishable, they would go one individual instance.The facts of the instance were filed on March 1850, but the tribunal didn? Thear the instance until 1852. Part of the job the Scotts faced withthe hold was that Missouri was get downing to experience increasing politicalforce per unit area over the inquiry of bondage. The province found itself in anawkward place, since it was bordered on three sides by free provinces.The force per unit area of the free district around Missouri made Missouri? sproslavery legislative assembly to guard against antislavery Torahs.

SinceMissouri was being pressured by free district, the province supremetribunal Judgess who heard the instance decided to change by reversal the oldtribunal? s determination and reject Scott? s claim to freedom.In the Autumn of 1851, Judge William Scott and JudgeHamilton R. Gamble joined Judge John F.

Ryland in reconsideringthe Scott instance. On March 22nd, 1852, Judge Scott handed down thedetermination, which was that they favored for Mrs. Emerson. The Scottsdidn? T file a speedy entreaty with the Supreme Court, but alternatively, theywaited until Mrs. Emerson gave the Scotts to her brother, JohnSandford. On November 2nd, 1853, the Scotts filed their instanceagainst Sandford in the Circuit Court of the United States for theDistrict of Missouri.

The suit accused Sandford, who was a citizen ofNew York, of illicitly assailing, keeping, and incarcerating Dred Scot,Harriet Scott, and their two girls, all citizens of Missouri. Thisinstance was so set for April 1854.On April 7th, 1854, Sandford and his lawyer, Hugh A.

Garland,challenged the tribunal? s right to hear the instance based upon the fact thatDred Scott descended from slaves of African blood, hence ne’erbeing a true citizen of Missouri. Judge Robert W. Wells denied thechallenge, saying that for the intent of this instance, citizenship impliednil more than abode in a province. After a really long legal program,the instance eventually came to test on May 15, 1854. During the hearing,neither Scott? s or Sandford? s attorneies called any informants orintroduced any grounds that had no already been presented toold tribunals. The jury returned a finding of fact in Sandford? s favour.

Since the test went to rapidly, Alexander Field, Scott? s lawyer, fileda measure of exclusions, which is the first measure necessary to take the instanceto the highest tribunal in the land.Scott? s work is going more and more hard. He has tohappen a new lawyer who could reason the instance before the SupremeCourt. They wanted an experient attorney who was willing to donatehis fee for legal services. Many months passed, adnd Scott still hadneither an lawyer or the money to acquire the instance. On Christmas Eveof 1854, Alexander Field wrote to Montgomery Blair proposing thathe or some other Washington lawyer might function? the cause ofhumanity? ( pg. 44, The Dred Scott Case: Bondage and Citizenship )Meanwhile, the Sandfords didn? Ts have a difficult clip at all happening anlawyer. The two lawyers were Henry S.

Geyer, and ReverdyJohnson. Henry S. Geyer was a well-thought-of member of the MissouriState Bar, and Reverdy Johnson was a former senator and lawyergeneral under President Zachary Taylor.

Those two lawyers wereamong the most well-thought-of constitutional attorneies in the state. Thewritten notes of Dred Scott v. Sandford was delivered to the SupremeCourt on December 20, 1854.Scott was waiting for the Supreme Court? s determination, which werethe effects of the Kansas-Nebraska act, were get downing to take clasp.The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by Congress in 1854. Itprovided that two new districts, Kansas and Nebraska, were to bemade from the Indian land that lay west of the set of the MissouriRiver, and North of 37 grades latitude.

Senator Stephen A. Douglasof Illinois introduced the measure into Congress. Finally, on February 7th,1856, Blair filed his sum-up of the instance.

Blair argued that whenScott had gone to Illinois province fundamental law specifically forbade bondagein that province. He argued that every bit shortly as Scott set pes in Illinois, hewas free from bondage. Scott? s statements consists of him being aslave in the slave province of Missouri. Scott had traveled to the freeprovince of Illinois, upon which action he became free. The rule oflasting emancipation entitled Scott to stay a free adult male afterreturning to Missouri ; one time free, ever free, the rule said. Scottso had the right to action for his freedom in federal tribunal becausehe was a citizen by virtuousness of his abode in one of the United Statesof America. Sandford? s Arguments consisted of three elements: 1 )The limitations on bondage and the Missouri Compromise were invalidbecause Congress did non hold the authorization to make up one’s mind the issue ofbondage in the districts. 2 ) Scott? s going to Illinois Territory didnon, hence, make him a free adult male.

# ) Scott? s return to Missouri, aslave province, meant that since he had ne’er been a free adult male, he kepthis position as a slave. ( pg. 54, The Dred Scott Case: Bondage andCitizenship )On March 6th, 1857, Taney, Chief Justice, began reading ashortened sum-up of his sentiment in a crowded courtroom. By May13th, Taney? s sentiment had non been released for publication. In lateMay, Taney? s official sentiment was released. The Supreme tribunal haddecided one time and for all that Dred Scott was still a slave and that theMissouri Compromise was unconstitutional, a determination that made it nulland nothingness.

This opinion had been long anticipated and it was received bymany. All that remained of this instance is the effects on society.The impact of the Dred Scott determination spread rapidlythroughout the land.

From local documents, to the politicians, everyonehad an sentiment to the determination and it affected them in some manner.Those opposed to slavery had been working for the release of allslaves directed their choler towards the Court. They were determinedto see Dred Scott reversed in order to halt the spread of bondagethroughout the US Legislature. Republicans thought that by takingover the executive and legislative subdivisions of the authorities, theycould put force per unit area on the tribunal to reconsider its determination.Throughout the Civil War old ages, President Lincoln, who was anemancipationist, clashed with Chief Justice Taney. During the following threeold ages, Taney opposed about all action taken by Lincoln in the nameof the federal authorities.

In the long tally, it wasn? t the determination ofthe Supreme tribunal, or the sentiment of Roger Taney, nor it was the CivilWar, fundamental law amendment or the Emancipation Proclamation thatwas the beginning of the terminal of bondage. It was the finding of aextremely respected adult male with common sense and a great findingto contend for what he felt was right. To sum up that in one word, thatadult male would be Dred Scott.

This event would be a mometous determinationbecause it affected many people so and now. Without this first measureto freedom of the slaves or African Americans, so life wouldn? T belike it is. Alternatively, it would be much different, merely like back so.