In the history of the United States, from the time period of 1857 until 1896, the Supreme Court, a national branch of government designed to interpret the Constitution to decide what is and what isn't constitutional, denied civil rights to Blacks to a great extent. With this denial of civil liberties, life for Blacks became filled with injustice in society, unequal treatment, and poor living conditions. Throughout our history, Blacks have been treated unjustly, and from 1857-1896, the Supreme Court had the power to correct these errors; however, they instead contributed to them. A tremendous amount of cases of indicating civil injustice towards Blacks had been brought up before the Supreme Court. However, two significant cases that made a tremendous
…show more content…
Taken to Illinois, a free state, and he then went to the state of Wisconsin, and then concluded in Missouri. In 1843, Scott’s owner passed away, and he filed a law suit against his late owner’s wife, Eliza Irene Emerson and John Sanford claiming that he was a free man in the Missouri Supreme Court. (http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/placesinhistory/archive/2011/20110301_descriptiveintro.html)He argued that given the fact that he was in Illinois, this removed him from the bondage of slavery and servitude. At a federal level, his lawsuit failed; however, after eleven year, his case was heard before the Supreme Court. Illinois and Wisconsin were free sates. According to their laws, slavery was forbidden by federal and state laws. This meant that Dred Scott was indeed free. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court begged to differ. Under the 5th amendment to the constitution, if a person were to have his or her property taken away, there would be a need for just compensation. Dred Scott was regarded as property and under protection granted by the 5th amendment; Dred Scott gaining his freedom would be a violation of John Sanford’s constitutional rights. To justify Dred Scott remaining a slave, out of nine Supreme Court Justice’s, seven of them voted against Mr. Scott and two of …show more content…
Sanford case, however, African Americans were also denied their rights by the Supreme Court in the Plessey vs. Ferguson case of 1896. Following the reconstruction, legislation was passed by North and Southern states implementing legal Segregation. This allowed for the segregation of educational facilities, parks, waiting rooms, bathrooms, and plenty more accommodations. A man by the name of Homer Adolph Plessey who in actuality was 1/8th African Americans, rose to the challenge and tried to combat this cruel system. He was a member of an organization dedicated to fighting these unjust atrocities by using methods of civil disobedience. On his way to Baton Rouge from New Orleans, Plessey defied the rail road instructor and refused to sit in the segregated area of the train. By doing so, Plessey was arrested. He then petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court in a writ against a man named Ferguson who at the time was a trial court judge-- to stop the proceedings against him. Plessey’s Petition failed in the Louisiana Supreme Court. He then took the case and appealed it for the Supreme Court of the United States. In a seven to one decision reached by the Supreme Court, Justice Henry B. Brown, a resident of Michigan argued that there was no issue there due to the grounds that the laws of segregation did not violate either the 13th of 14th amendments. To bring his argument further, he stated
Taken to Illinois, a free state, and he then went to the state of Wisconsin, and then concluded in Missouri. In 1843, Scott’s owner passed away, and he filed a law suit against his late owner’s wife, Eliza Irene Emerson and John Sanford claiming that he was a free man in the Missouri Supreme Court. (http://www.loc.gov/rr/geogmap/placesinhistory/archive/2011/20110301_descriptiveintro.html)He argued that given the fact that he was in Illinois, this removed him from the bondage of slavery and servitude. At a federal level, his lawsuit failed; however, after eleven year, his case was heard before the Supreme Court. Illinois and Wisconsin were free sates. According to their laws, slavery was forbidden by federal and state laws. This meant that Dred Scott was indeed free. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court begged to differ. Under the 5th amendment to the constitution, if a person were to have his or her property taken away, there would be a need for just compensation. Dred Scott was regarded as property and under protection granted by the 5th amendment; Dred Scott gaining his freedom would be a violation of John Sanford’s constitutional rights. To justify Dred Scott remaining a slave, out of nine Supreme Court Justice’s, seven of them voted against Mr. Scott and two of …show more content…
Sanford case, however, African Americans were also denied their rights by the Supreme Court in the Plessey vs. Ferguson case of 1896. Following the reconstruction, legislation was passed by North and Southern states implementing legal Segregation. This allowed for the segregation of educational facilities, parks, waiting rooms, bathrooms, and plenty more accommodations. A man by the name of Homer Adolph Plessey who in actuality was 1/8th African Americans, rose to the challenge and tried to combat this cruel system. He was a member of an organization dedicated to fighting these unjust atrocities by using methods of civil disobedience. On his way to Baton Rouge from New Orleans, Plessey defied the rail road instructor and refused to sit in the segregated area of the train. By doing so, Plessey was arrested. He then petitioned the Louisiana Supreme Court in a writ against a man named Ferguson who at the time was a trial court judge-- to stop the proceedings against him. Plessey’s Petition failed in the Louisiana Supreme Court. He then took the case and appealed it for the Supreme Court of the United States. In a seven to one decision reached by the Supreme Court, Justice Henry B. Brown, a resident of Michigan argued that there was no issue there due to the grounds that the laws of segregation did not violate either the 13th of 14th amendments. To bring his argument further, he stated