Sam Scott better known as Dred Scott was an important person during the 1800's. His famous court case helped hasten the arrival of the American Civil War. The court case between Mr. Dred Scott and Stanford was relatively significant during the 1800's because the Northern and Southern states has been struggling for decades about what to do about slavery. Of course the states later came up with a decision that the slaves did not agree with or like. They came up with a series of bills called the Compromise of 1850. This Compromise only allowed certain states like California, Texas and Illinois to be free states while the rest of the sates had to be slave states. Slaves including Dred Scott found this compromise unfair and cruel.
The slaves later began to get so fed up with the Compromise of 1850, that they began rebelling against their masters. Dred Scott even decided to escape from his master James Emerson who was a doctor for the United States soldiers. Dred Scott originally resided in St. Louis Missouri, which obviously was a slave state. But he escaped to Illinois a free state in 1856. He then left Illinois to go to Fort Snelling near Wisconsin Territory, where the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery. The Missouri Compromise was measures passed by the United States Congress to end the first of a series of crisis concerning the extensions of slavery. This was good for the slaves because it gave them an opportunity to escape their slave homes and seek new things in other states. However when Dred Scott decided to take that risk, he accomplished it at first but was later found by his original owner James Emerson. James Emerson found him in Wisconsin and brought him back to Missouri. But what James Emerson did not know was that Dred Scott had married an African American woman named Harriet. So she too had to be bought back to Missouri and had to work for James Emerson and his family.
Once Dred Scott, Harriet Scott and the Emerson family arrived back to Missouri, the Scott's decided to sue for their freedom. It was a long process but they finally made it possible to sue. The first Dred Scott case was first brought to trial in 1847 on the first floor, west wing courtroom of St. Louis' Courthouse. This case was lost because Dred Scott had evidence to prove that he was free, but the jury and judge did not take the Dred Scott case serious. However, the judge granted the Scott's a second trial. The second trial was held in the same courtroom but in the year 1850. By this time James Emerson died and Dred Scott and Harriet Scott was property of James' wife Irene Emerson. She did not want to lose Dred and his wife at all because she claimed that they were great workers and she wanted them to work for her children. So when the Scott's went to the second trial and was granted freedom, Irene decided to take it to the United States Missouri Supreme Ruling in 1852.
This particular trial took place in an Old courthouse, where the judges were cruel and mean. But Dred Scott did not care, he was determined to fight for his freedom. Dred Scott and his wife found a new set of lawyers who absolutely hated slavery and was willing to represent them at no cost. They helped him sue against John F.A. Sanford, Irene's brother in 1854. But since Sanford lived in New York, the case had to be moved again to a Federal District Courtroom because of the diversity in the residence. The trial ruled in favor of Sanford, but Dred Scott still did not give up. He later took it to the United States Supreme Court.
On March 6th, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Seven of the nine juries agreed that Dred Scott should remain a slave, but Taney did not stop there. He also ruled that as a slave, Dred Scott was not a citizen of the United States, and therefore had no right to bring suit in the federal courts on any matter. In addition, he declared that Scott had never been free, due to the fact that slaves were personal property and that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional, and the Federal Government had no right to prohibit slavery in the new territories. The court appeared to be sanctioning slavery under the terms of the Constitution itself, and saying that slavery could not be outlawed or restricted within the United States. That is when the rest of the United States began to hear about this case. Antislavery groups feared that slavery would spread rapidly. The new Republican Party, founded in 1854 to prohibit the spread of slavery, renewed their fight to gain control of the Congress and the courts. Their well planned political campaign of 1860, coupled with numerous of issues, which split the Democratic Party, led to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States and South Carolina's secession from the Union. The Dred Scott Decision moved the country to the brink of Civil War.
Ironically, Irene Emerson remarried in 1850 to a man name Calvin C. Chaffee, a northren congressman who was opposed to slavery. After the Supreme Court decision, Mrs. Chaffee turned Dred and Harriet Scott and their two daughters over to Dred's old friends, the Blows, who gave the Scotts their freedom in May 1857. On September 17, 1858, Dred Scott died of tuberculosis and was buried in St. Louis. His grave was moved in the 1860s to Calvary Cemetery in northern St. Louis, and marked due to the efforts of the Rev. Edward Dowling in 1957. Dred Scott did not live to see the fratricidal war touched off at Fort Sumter in 1861, but did live to gain his freedom. The ultimate result of the war, the end of slavery throughout the United States, was not something Dred Scott could have foreseen in 1846, when he decided to sue for his freedom in St. Louis' Old Courthouse.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
4th Annotation Dred Scott
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/a/part4/4h2933.html. 1857. PBS online
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks (slaves as well as free) were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories.The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had came to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted for his freedom. Taney which was a supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. But Dred Scott sued anyway and lost his first case but later won his second one.
163 words
This website was helpful to my knowledge on Dred Scott because, it helped me form my first two paragraphs of my paper on him. This was a secondary source because it told me what happened during those years, it did not tell me exactly what happened. The intended audience I think was African Americans and judges or juries.
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks (slaves as well as free) were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all of the country's territories.The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had came to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted for his freedom. Taney which was a supporter of slavery and intent on protecting southerners from northern aggression wrote in the Court's majority opinion that, because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. But Dred Scott sued anyway and lost his first case but later won his second one.
163 words
This website was helpful to my knowledge on Dred Scott because, it helped me form my first two paragraphs of my paper on him. This was a secondary source because it told me what happened during those years, it did not tell me exactly what happened. The intended audience I think was African Americans and judges or juries.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Recipe For a Good Mother...(Mr. Romero)
"Didn't I tell you to pick up those clothes off the floor?!" Does that sound familiar? Well that's just an average mom reminding a child to pick up clothes off the floor. But I have a recipe for an extremely good mother. A mother who has surpluses of love for the child, has good communication in the relationship, and trusts and supports their child, in just about anything they do.
In order to create a good mother, there must be 100 cups of love in the relationship. The mother must care and have love for their child, no matter what. If a child does something bad like get suspended from school, the mother can't get extremely mad and tell the child that she hates them. A good mother will make mends with them, probably put them on punishment but still love them. That's their child, and children sometimes make mistakes. But the mother should always adore them.
Another ingredient that you must add in order to create a good mother is 1 and 3/4 cups of communication. A good mother has a good relationship with a child through communication. A good mother can simply ask a child, "How was your day?", or "What did they do in school?" Simple questions like that can make a good mother and child's relationship blossom and grow very strong. For instance, if a child was having a horrible day or was not feeling good, if the mother just asks the child "how was their day", it could easily fix their day and it will make them feel that they have a mother who cares and loves for them. In the story "The Night I Won the Right to the Streets of Memphis", by Richard Wright the mother did not communicate properly with her child Richard when he got beat up by the gang. She kept constantly telling him to go back outside and get the groceries. She did not listen to his side of the story of what was happening every time he went outside and tried to get the groceries.
The last ingredients needed to make a good mother are 2 full cups of trust and a pinch of support. Trusting your child can make you a great parent. If you allow your child to do certain things; go outside, go to the movies etc., you trust them to actually do that. Slowly the child will gain trust in you. A good mother also wants to support her child. Lead them on the right path and be open to their suggestions. In "Memphis", the mother was not leading Richard onto the right path when she gave him a stick to defend himself from the gang. She was leading him into becoming a bully. That is not the right way to lead a child. A good mother will lead them into a positive path.
A good mother consists of love, trust, support, and communication. That's all you need in order to create one. Maybe you should create a good father, but this time add a little spice to your own recipe.
In order to create a good mother, there must be 100 cups of love in the relationship. The mother must care and have love for their child, no matter what. If a child does something bad like get suspended from school, the mother can't get extremely mad and tell the child that she hates them. A good mother will make mends with them, probably put them on punishment but still love them. That's their child, and children sometimes make mistakes. But the mother should always adore them.
Another ingredient that you must add in order to create a good mother is 1 and 3/4 cups of communication. A good mother has a good relationship with a child through communication. A good mother can simply ask a child, "How was your day?", or "What did they do in school?" Simple questions like that can make a good mother and child's relationship blossom and grow very strong. For instance, if a child was having a horrible day or was not feeling good, if the mother just asks the child "how was their day", it could easily fix their day and it will make them feel that they have a mother who cares and loves for them. In the story "The Night I Won the Right to the Streets of Memphis", by Richard Wright the mother did not communicate properly with her child Richard when he got beat up by the gang. She kept constantly telling him to go back outside and get the groceries. She did not listen to his side of the story of what was happening every time he went outside and tried to get the groceries.
The last ingredients needed to make a good mother are 2 full cups of trust and a pinch of support. Trusting your child can make you a great parent. If you allow your child to do certain things; go outside, go to the movies etc., you trust them to actually do that. Slowly the child will gain trust in you. A good mother also wants to support her child. Lead them on the right path and be open to their suggestions. In "Memphis", the mother was not leading Richard onto the right path when she gave him a stick to defend himself from the gang. She was leading him into becoming a bully. That is not the right way to lead a child. A good mother will lead them into a positive path.
A good mother consists of love, trust, support, and communication. That's all you need in order to create one. Maybe you should create a good father, but this time add a little spice to your own recipe.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Thesis Statement and Introduction for Dred Scott
Born in Southampton, Virgina in the year 1795 was a significant individual named Sam Scott. But he later changed his name to Dred Scott. Dred Scott was very important. He was a main reason of why the civil war began. Mr. Scott was an African American slave, who fought long and hard for his freedom. A lot of struggles and obstacles got in his way but he never gave up. He once had gotten free but was later captured and enslaved again, he also was almost beaten to death trying to escape out of a city and his wife had to suffer some due to his constant tryings to escape.
3rd Annotation for Dred Scott...
Thompson, Gale. "'Black History-Dred Scott"- United States, 2005.
The article I read was about Dred Scott and how he was born in South Hampton, Virginia in 1795. His first original name was "Sam". He was a farmhand, and a handy man. He later moved to Huntsville, Alabama and then St. Louis Missouri. In 1831, his owner Peter Blow died, and a surgeon for the United States military, John Emerson later bought and enslaved him. He moved with John into Illinois than Wisconsin. In 1836, he Dred was allowed to marry which he did. Then in 1848, he changed his name from Sam to Dred Scott. Many of times Dred Scott tried to run away but was always unsuccessful. When John Emerson died, he left his widow Irene Emerson in charge of Dred. She too refused to let him free. He then found two attorneys who helped him sue for his freedom in county court. He lost the first trial but the second trial he won.
157 words
The article I read was about Dred Scott and how he was born in South Hampton, Virginia in 1795. His first original name was "Sam". He was a farmhand, and a handy man. He later moved to Huntsville, Alabama and then St. Louis Missouri. In 1831, his owner Peter Blow died, and a surgeon for the United States military, John Emerson later bought and enslaved him. He moved with John into Illinois than Wisconsin. In 1836, he Dred was allowed to marry which he did. Then in 1848, he changed his name from Sam to Dred Scott. Many of times Dred Scott tried to run away but was always unsuccessful. When John Emerson died, he left his widow Irene Emerson in charge of Dred. She too refused to let him free. He then found two attorneys who helped him sue for his freedom in county court. He lost the first trial but the second trial he won.
157 words
Thursday, October 16, 2008
4 In between the line questions for Mr. Romero
1. What do you think the mom would of gave Richard if she didn't give him the stick?
Some weapons I think the mom would of gave Richard instead of the stick would of been a knife, a bat, or a gun. I think she would of gave him a knife because if the gang would of harmed Richard dramatically he could of stabbed them and hurt them very much. I think she would of gave him a bat because it is similar to the stick that she gave him. And I think that she would of gave him a gun just to kill whomever was bothering him. That is why I think that she would of either gave him a knife, bat or gun instead of a stick.
2. If Richard's father never left, how would the story be different?
I think if the father was to never leave Richard the story would of been very different. I think the father would of taught his son how to be a man in the first place. If the father would of taught Richard this earlier i life I think that Richard would of already been a part of the gang or he could of avoided going back to the mom and getting more money and another note. Basically, if the father was there the story probalbly would of been very different.
3. What is the resolution?
I think the resolution was "never underestimate yourself." I say that that was the resolution because at first when Richard went out to get the groceries he was defenseless and he didn't think that he could defeat the gang. But once his mother gave him that stick, he suddenly became aware of his surroundings and began to hit the gang with the stick and he ended up hurting them. So it was kind of like the story was switched around. He underestimated himself and he ended up coming on top. That is my opinion of the resolution.
4. If Richard hadn't handled the situation the way he did, how would of you suggested he handled the situation?
If Richard didn't handle the situation by using the stick, I think that he could of asked a friend that lived close by him, to walk him to the store and help him fight his way to the store. I don't think that Richard should of used a weapon to help fight his battle. He should of just asked a friend for a little bit of help because some people were extremely injured and it wasn't a fair fight. Those are some ways that he could of handled the situation.
Some weapons I think the mom would of gave Richard instead of the stick would of been a knife, a bat, or a gun. I think she would of gave him a knife because if the gang would of harmed Richard dramatically he could of stabbed them and hurt them very much. I think she would of gave him a bat because it is similar to the stick that she gave him. And I think that she would of gave him a gun just to kill whomever was bothering him. That is why I think that she would of either gave him a knife, bat or gun instead of a stick.
2. If Richard's father never left, how would the story be different?
I think if the father was to never leave Richard the story would of been very different. I think the father would of taught his son how to be a man in the first place. If the father would of taught Richard this earlier i life I think that Richard would of already been a part of the gang or he could of avoided going back to the mom and getting more money and another note. Basically, if the father was there the story probalbly would of been very different.
3. What is the resolution?
I think the resolution was "never underestimate yourself." I say that that was the resolution because at first when Richard went out to get the groceries he was defenseless and he didn't think that he could defeat the gang. But once his mother gave him that stick, he suddenly became aware of his surroundings and began to hit the gang with the stick and he ended up hurting them. So it was kind of like the story was switched around. He underestimated himself and he ended up coming on top. That is my opinion of the resolution.
4. If Richard hadn't handled the situation the way he did, how would of you suggested he handled the situation?
If Richard didn't handle the situation by using the stick, I think that he could of asked a friend that lived close by him, to walk him to the store and help him fight his way to the store. I don't think that Richard should of used a weapon to help fight his battle. He should of just asked a friend for a little bit of help because some people were extremely injured and it wasn't a fair fight. Those are some ways that he could of handled the situation.
Monday, October 13, 2008
On Line Questions-Mr. Romero
1. What happened after the mother gave Richard the money and note the first time?
After the mother gave Richard the money the first time he began to walk down the street, then ran into a gang, got jumped and the money and the note was stolen from him.
2. How many times did the mother give Richard more money and another note?
The mother gave Richard more money and another note three times.
3. Who was the key character Richard or the gang?
The key character was Richard, because he was the main character because without him, there probably would not be a story.
4. Which is true or false....
Richard had to go to the electronic store to buy a remote control
or
Richard had to go to the market and get some groceries
5. Who spoke to Richard and told him to stand up for himself?
The person who spoke to Richard and told him to stand up for himself was his mother. She gave him a stick to use against the gang, and she told him to go to the grocery store and get the groceries or else he would not be coming back into the house and she was going to whoop him.
6. What did the gang take away from Richard?
The gang took the money that the mother gave Richard and the note that had the groceries needed written on it.
7. Can you remember the city that the boy lived in?
The city that Richard lived in was Memphis.
8. Can you tell me what the mother wanted the boy to get from the store?
The mother wanted Richard to get some groceries.
9. Where did the story take place?
The story took place in Memphis on dark streets and on the steps towards his house.
10. What did Richard use to hit the gang with?
Richard was given a stick by his mother to defend himself and that's what he used to hit the gang with.
After the mother gave Richard the money the first time he began to walk down the street, then ran into a gang, got jumped and the money and the note was stolen from him.
2. How many times did the mother give Richard more money and another note?
The mother gave Richard more money and another note three times.
3. Who was the key character Richard or the gang?
The key character was Richard, because he was the main character because without him, there probably would not be a story.
4. Which is true or false....
Richard had to go to the electronic store to buy a remote control
or
Richard had to go to the market and get some groceries
5. Who spoke to Richard and told him to stand up for himself?
The person who spoke to Richard and told him to stand up for himself was his mother. She gave him a stick to use against the gang, and she told him to go to the grocery store and get the groceries or else he would not be coming back into the house and she was going to whoop him.
6. What did the gang take away from Richard?
The gang took the money that the mother gave Richard and the note that had the groceries needed written on it.
7. Can you remember the city that the boy lived in?
The city that Richard lived in was Memphis.
8. Can you tell me what the mother wanted the boy to get from the store?
The mother wanted Richard to get some groceries.
9. Where did the story take place?
The story took place in Memphis on dark streets and on the steps towards his house.
10. What did Richard use to hit the gang with?
Richard was given a stick by his mother to defend himself and that's what he used to hit the gang with.
Monday, October 6, 2008
2nd Annotation of Dred Scott
"The Dred Scott Decision." The History Place. Boston: Gavin,Philip, 1996.
The article that I have recently read was about Dred Scott, and how he moved to the free state of Illinois. For years he was living on free land. But his old owner came and took him back to a slave state which was Missouri. Once he arrived in the slave state he was no longer free. He had to work for his recent owner again with out pay and go along with his owner as his slave master. But by the year 1847, Dred Scott thought that he had the right to sue his owner for freedom. Which he decided to do.Once he sued for his freedom, he caught back up with his wife and kids, but could only stay in Illinois.
123 words
This article was helpful to me because it gave me a little bit more information on Dred Scott's background. I think this article was a secondary source.
The article that I have recently read was about Dred Scott, and how he moved to the free state of Illinois. For years he was living on free land. But his old owner came and took him back to a slave state which was Missouri. Once he arrived in the slave state he was no longer free. He had to work for his recent owner again with out pay and go along with his owner as his slave master. But by the year 1847, Dred Scott thought that he had the right to sue his owner for freedom. Which he decided to do.Once he sued for his freedom, he caught back up with his wife and kids, but could only stay in Illinois.
123 words
This article was helpful to me because it gave me a little bit more information on Dred Scott's background. I think this article was a secondary source.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
